Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1820
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Thangaraj and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The Sub-Registrar, (Document Registration Department), Aruppukkottai Sub-Registrar Office, Virudhunagar District – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No.459 of 2025
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Tamilvanan.
For the Respondent : Mr. M. Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.r.Tamilvanan
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader
The court ruled that the requirement for original documents for property registration is not legally mandated when certified copies are available, emphasizing the rights of property owners.
Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 2000 - Rule 55A - Writ petition challenging refusal to register a settlement deed on grounds of non-production of original parent document - Court held that insisting on original documents is arbitrary and not in accordance with law - The petitioner is allowed to re-present the settlement deed for registration without needing to produce the original document. (Paras 10)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 6, 7, 41, 42, 43, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57 - The court discussed the nature of property transfers, emphasizing that subsequent transfers are permissible even if prior agreements exist, provided the rights of earlier transferees are respected. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner intended to settle property in favor of his son but was denied registration due to lack of original documents, contrary to established legal principles. The court highlighted the arbitrary nature of such refusals, especially when certified copies were available.
Findings of Court:
The insistence on original documents for registration was deemed arbitrary and contrary to legal standards, leading to the quashing of the refusal check slip.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration based on the absence of original documents despite the availability of certified copies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement for original documents was not legally mandated when certified copies were presented, and the rights of property owners must be upheld.
Result: Writ petition allowed, and the Sub-Registrar directed to register the settlement deed without insisting on original documents.
ORDER :
(G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 23.12.2024 issued by the respondent, thereby refused to register the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of his son on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original parent document in respect of the property in Old S.No.64/4B and New S.No. 64/4B2 to an extent of 94 cents situated at Aaththipatti Village, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District. .
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 settle the same in favour of his son. After execution of the settlement 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 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 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 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
