The court held that the failure to produce original parent documents does not justify the refusal to register a deed when certified copies can be verified, reinforcing property rights and registration compliance.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.01.2025 passed by the second respondent, thereby refused to register the release deed on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original parent document in respect of the subject property.

2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The petitioner presented the release deed for registration before the second respondent. However, the second respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the parent deed in respect of the subject property.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.271 of 2024 dated 25.03.2024 held that the first proviso to Rule 55A of the TAMIL NADU REGISTRATION RULES , 2000 is not at all declared as ultravires by this Court. The provisos to Rule 55 A are intact in Rule Books and therefore, it is to be complied scrupulously, whenever documents are presented for registration. Further, the second and third provisos to Rule 55A of the Registration Rules enumerates procedures to be followed in the event of non-availability of revenue records to be produced for registration. The presentant of a document is bound to comply with the conditions stipulated in Rule 55A for registering a document under the Registration Act.

5. In the case of Federal Bank v. Sub-Registrar , 2023 (2) CTC 289, it is held that it is not open to the Inspector General of Registration to take a contra view and notify a subordinate legislation the effect of which is to completely render nugatory to the interpretation made by this Court. Ex-facie, the first proviso to Rule 55-A (i) is clearly illegal and is vitiated by a clear abuse of power.

6. In the case of N. Ramayee vs. the Sub Registrar , W.P. No. 674 of 2020 dated 05.11.2020, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-

“29. In the light of the above when we deal with the various provisions of the Transfer of Property Act the question arises as to whether the transfer is restricted to one time in respect of the immovable property, unless the previous transfer or any agreement is set aside in the court of law, and other transfer is permissible? The answer is absolutely “No” for the following reasons:

The property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by the transfer of property Act or by any other law for the time being, as provided in Section 6 of the Transfer of property Act.

30. Every person competent to contract and entitled to transferable property, or authorised to dispose of transferable property not his own, is competent to transfer such property either wholly or in part, and either absolutely or conditionally, in the circumstances, to the extent and in the manner allowed and prescribed by any law for the time being in force, as per Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act. The reading of the above section makes it very clear that even a person not entitled transferable property is competent to transfer such property when he was authorised to dispose of such property.

31. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the power of the ostensible owner to effect the transfer of the property with consent, express or implied of the real owner.

32. From the principle underlined in the Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is that the ostensible o