Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules is inconsistent with the Registration Act, 1908, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as it improperly mandates original documents for registration when certified copies are available.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 09.01.2024 made in W.P.No.242 of 2024.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram dated 30.11.2023, the petitioner/appellant had moved this Court in W.P.No.242 of 2024. The refusal check slip was issued on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the original of the antecedent title deeds. The petitioner/appellant had sought to register a release deed dated 30.11.2023 in and by which, she sought to relinquish her rights over certain immovable properties in favour a brother. It is not in dispute that those properties belonged to the family and were allotted to the father of the executant / petitioner under the partition deed dated 04.10.1960 and the sale deed dated 18.01.1966. The revenue records that stood in the name of the father were also produced. The Sub Registrar, however, relied upon the second proviso to rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, refused to register the document and issued the impugned check slip. The petitioner, however, produced certified copies of those documents which were also issued by the very same office namely, Sub Registrar, Rasipuram. Since the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the Writ Court, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

2. We have heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. Mr.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules itself is against the provisions of the parent Act namely, the Registration Act, 1908. He would submit that it runs counter to various provisions of the substantive law relating to transfer of immovable property namely, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. If a State legislature intends to enact the law which will be inconsistent with the central enactment in respect of matters enumerated in List III of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, Article 245 of the Constitution of India requires that the State law should be reserved for the assent of the President and upon such assent being granted after the President is apprised of the inconsistency, the State law would prevail in that State. He would point out by placing Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules in the subordinate legislation that the State has circumvented the provisions of Article 245 of the Constitution of India. He would therefore submit that the very rule which lays down several conditions for registration of instruments of transfer of immovable property being inconsistent with the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it cannot be invoked by the Sub Registrar indiscriminately to deny registration of instruments.

4. The learned counsel would further point out that mechanical application of rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, will only lead to even a genuine transfer instruments being refused registration. He would also draw our attention to two Division Bench judgments of this Court to which one of us (R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) was a party. The first judgment relied upon by him is M.Ariyanatchi and another vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, and another [W.A(MD)No.856 of 2023, dated 27.06.2023], wherein, this Court had taken note of the very same provision and held that production of original documents, where it is claimed that it is lost, need not be insisted upon in all cases across the board without application of mind. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in Punithavathy vs. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and three others [W.A.No.1571 of 2024, dated 05.06.2024], where, again a refusal check slip issued by the Registrar on the ground of non production of original documents, was quashe