The court ruled that a Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration solely due to non-production of original documents, emphasizing the constitutional right to deal with property.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the first respondent dated 17.05.2024, thereby refusing to register the sale deed which was presented for registration on the ground that the petitioners failed to produce the original parent document in respect of the property comprised in Door No.8-3-91, 5/2, Kamarajar West Street, Nilakottai Town in Dindigul District.

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

3. The petitioners owned the subject property and intended to sell the same in favour of one A.Palpandi. After execution of the sale deed, it was presented for registration before the first respondent. However, the first respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the petitioners failed to produce the parent deed in respect of the subject property.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent 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 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