Administrative rules cannot impose stricter requirements than statutory provisions regarding property transactions, particularly concerning document registration.

ORDER :

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip in Refusal Number RFL/Joint Sub-Registrar No.II, Tenkasi/41/2024, dated 26.3.2024 issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondent to forthwith register and release the deed of relinquishment, dated 26.3.2024 presented by the Petitioner, within the time fixed by this Court.

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The petitioner and his brother K.Mubarak @ Abdul Mubarak jointly purchased the landed property in New Aya Nanaja in S.No.1052/4 admeasuring 36 cents and New Ayan Nanja in S.No.1053/2 admeasuring 7 cents totally 43 cents situate at Tenkasi Village through registered sale deed vide document No.862 of 2000, dated 24.4.2000 and they have equal share in the said land.While so the Petitioner had executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of his broher K.Mubarak @ Abdul Mubarak and presented the same for registration on 26.3.2024 stating that the original document was not produced and name of the claimant K.Mubarak differ with the name found in the previous document and directed to produce the necessary certificate to prove both K.Mubarak and K.Mubareak @ Abdul Mubarak are one and the same. Hence the Writ Petition is filed for the aforesaid relief.

4.The learned Special 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 55 A of the TAMIL NADU REGISTRATION RULES , 2000 is not at all declared as ultra-vires 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 reported in 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 , in 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 Tra