Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1333
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
T. Saroja - Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Vathalakundu - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 13263 of 2024
Decided On : 09-01-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : S. Malaikani
For the Respondent : S.P. Maharajan
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Malaikani
For the Respondent: Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader
Insistence on original documents for property registration is arbitrary when certified copies are available; subsequent transfers are permissible under law.
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 sale deed - Petitioners challenged refusal to register sale deed due to non-production of original parent document - Court held that insistence on original documents is arbitrary and unnecessary when certified copies are available - Previous judgments reaffirmed that subsequent transfers are permissible and rights of transferees are protected. (Paras 1, 5, 10)
(B) Registration - Conditions for registration - The first respondent cannot refuse registration based solely on the absence of original documents when sufficient evidence is provided. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners owned property and executed a sale deed for registration, which was refused due to lack of original parent document. Respondent cited rules requiring original documents for registration.
Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the refusal check slip, directing registration of the sale deed without requiring the original document.
Issues: Whether the respondent could refuse registration based on the absence of the original parent document.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the insistence on original documents is arbitrary when certified copies are available, allowing for subsequent transfers.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
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 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
