Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4054
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Gafoor Nissa - Petitioner
Versus
The Sub-Registrar, Viraalimalai Registrar Office, Viraalimalai, Pudukkottai District - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No.1509 of 2025
Decided On : 21-01-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. C. Chezhiyan.
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader.
Subsequent transfers of property are permissible even without original documents, emphasizing that registration cannot be refused arbitrarily, upholding property ownership rights.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 6, 7, 41, 42, 43, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57 - Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 2000 - Challenge to refusal of registration of general power of attorney deed based on non-production of original parent document - Court held that subsequent transfers are permissible, and insistence on original document is an arbitrary exercise of power. (Paras 5, 6, 9)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Purpose and limits - The court remarked that registration cannot be refused arbitrarily or without legal authority. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owned property and executed a general power of attorney deed, which was refused registration by the respondent due to non-production of the original parent document.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the refusal slip and directed registration of the deed without requiring the parent document.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of refusal to register based solely on original document requirement and the applicability of law regarding registration procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that equal rights of property ownership permit subsequent transactions irrespective of earlier agreements, provided no legal restrictions are in place.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to registration refusal based on missing parent deed. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. writ petition challenging registration refusal. (Para 2) |
| 3. legal authority of the registrar regarding document registration. (Para 4) |
| 4. legality of registration rules discussed. (Para 5) |
| 5. interpretation of transfer law under the transfer of property act. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. court's view on limits of subordinate legislation and transfer rights. (Para 7) |
| 7. direction to register documents without original parent deed. (Para 10) |
ORDER :
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent, thereby refused to register the general power of attorney deed executed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original parent document.
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 owned the subject property and intended to execute the general power of attorney deed. After execution of the general power of attorney deed, it was presented 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 Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 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 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
