Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2611
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SUBRAMANIAN and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
G.Saraswathi - Appellant
versus
The Inspector General for Registration – Respondent
WA No.1832 of 2024
Decided on : 16-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.D.Padmanabhan
For the Respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, Additional Government Pleader
The registration rules cannot require a non-traceability certificate for documents destroyed in natural calamities; statutory requirements must adapt to extraordinary circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Registration Rules, Rule 55A - The appellant's sale deed was rejected due to the absence of the original title deed, which was claimed to have been destroyed during a cyclone. The court held the second proviso to Rule 55A was misapplied since it deals with lost documents, not those destroyed in natural calamities. (Paras 2, 4, 5)
(B) Administrative Discretion - The court emphasized that no person should be compelled to produce a false certificate under statutory requirements for registration. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant produced a certified copy of the original title deed, which was destroyed in a cyclone, along with a certificate from the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The Registrar's return check slip cited the lack of the original document as grounds for refusal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the original deed's destruction exempted the appellant from requiring a non-traceability certificate and therefore allowed the registration of the sale deed upon compliance with specified requirements.
Issues: Whether the requirements for registration of a sale deed were improperly applied in light of a natural disaster destroying the original document.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative rules should account for extraordinary circumstances, such as natural disasters, and that compelling false documentation was inappropriate.
Result: Writ appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. registration of sale deed requires original title deed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. certificate of destruction of original document crucial. (Para 3) |
| 3. proviso to rule 55a does not apply to destroyed documents. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. judgment favors re-registration of the sale deed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. writ appeal allowed with no costs. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of her writ petition wherein she had challenged the return check slip issued by the third respondent, refusing to register the sale deed executed by her on 08.11.2023 on the ground that the original title deed relating to the property has not been produced.
2. The sale deed in question refers to the parent title deed as Document No.599/1988, the certified copy of which has been produced. The said document is dated 18.03.1988 and has been registered as Doc.No.599/1988. In and by the said instrument, one Govindasamy, S/o Lakshmana Pillai, has purchased an extent of 28 cents of land in S.No.5/5 of Thirupanayur, Vadagarai Revenue Village of Nannilam Taluk. It is averred in the writ petition that the said Govindasami died, leaving behind the vendors under the sale deed dated 08.11.2023. The vendors have conveyed the said extent of 28 cents in S.No.5/5 of Thirupanayur, Vadagarai Revenue Village of Nannilam Taluk, to the appellant. When this sale deed was produced for registration, the Registrar passed the impugned check slip stating that the original of the sale deed dated 18.03.1988 has not been produced. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, requiring the appellant to comply with the formalities that are required to be done under second proviso to Rule 55A of the REGISTRATION RULES , introduced on 05.09.2022 and get the document registered.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the original document was destroyed during the Gaja cyclone and a certificate to that effect has been issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, viz., Tahsildar, Kudavasal. The said certificate reads as follows:
4. In the light of the above certificate, we find that it would be rather unnecessary to seek a non-traceability certificate as provided in the second proviso to Rule 55A of the REGISTRATION RULES .
The relevant proviso to Rule 55A of the REGISTRATION RULES reads as under:
“Provided further that in case the previous original deed is not available as the property being an ancestral one, the registering officer shall not register such document, unless the presentant produce any revenue record evidencing the executant's right over the subject property such as patta copy issued by Revenue Department or tax receipt:
Provided also that if the previous original deed is lost, the registering officer shall register such document only on production of non-traceable Certificate issued by the Police department along with the advertisement published in the local Newspaper as to the notice of loss of the previous original deed”.
5. The said proviso would apply only in cases were the document is alleged to be lost and not in cases where documents are claimed to have been destroyed or damaged due to natural calamities like flooding or fire accident. If at all the police issue a non-traceability certificate it will necessarily be a false certificate as the revenue official has certified that the original sale deed has been destroyed. Neither a statutory rule nor an order of this court can require a person to produce a false certificate.
6. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. The return check slip issued by the Registrar as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside.
8. The appellant is required to re-present the sale deed for registration within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such presentation along with certified copy of
