SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Krishnamoorthy - Petitioner 
Versus
The Sub-Registrar, Trichy Joint No.I, Sub Registrar Office, Trichirappalli – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No.1744 of 2025
Decided On : 23-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Ramakrishnan.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.P. Maharajan, Special Government Pleader.

The court affirmed that subsequent transfers of property are valid and cannot be arbitrarily hindered by procedural rules lacking statutory backing.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 6, 7, 41, 42, 43, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57 - Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 2000 - Rule 55A - Registration of settlement deed - Refusal to register based on non-production of original parent document deemed arbitrary - Court emphasized that subsequent transfers are permissible and should not be hindered by procedural rules that lack statutory authority. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 10)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Court can intervene when administrative actions are arbitrary and exceed statutory powers, ensuring that rights to property are upheld without unreasonable restrictions. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of the Sub Registrar to register a settlement deed due to the absence of the original parent document, despite presenting certified copies of antecedent documents.

Findings of Court:
The court found the refusal arbitrary and directed the Sub Registrar to register the deed without requiring the original document, emphasizing the constitutional right to property.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the refusal to register based on procedural rules and the rights of parties in property transactions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the insistence on original documents for registration is not supported by law and that the rights of property owners must be protected against arbitrary administrative actions.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

ORDER :

(G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 25.11.2024 issued by the respondent, thereby refused to register the settlement 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 settlement deed for registration before the respondent. However, the 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 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 Rule55 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 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 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 owner of the property, with the consent express or implied and representing himself as owner of the property though he is not having the title, can deal with the property. Similarly, Section 42 of the T.P. Act deals with the transfer by a person having authority to revoke the former transfer. When a person transfers any immovable property reserving power to revoke the transfer, and subse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top