The court ruled that the refusal to register a settlement deed based on non-production of the original document is unjustified, emphasizing the right to deal with property and the lack of statutory authority for such insistence.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 15.11.2024 passed by the second respondent, thereby, refused to register the settlement deed, which was presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the subject property.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The petitioner's father purchased the property comprised in Survey Nos.140/1, 140/2, 142/6, 142/7 & 142/8 situated at Gopalapuram Village, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District in the year 1967 vide document No. 422/1967. His father had executed the Will in favour of the petitioner and the same was registered before the second respondent vide document No.81 of 1999 dated 09.09.1999. From the date of Will, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same and patta has also been mutated in his favour. In the meanwhile, the petitioner decided to execute a settlement deed in favour of his son and executed a settlement deed on 15.11.2024 and the same was presented before the second respondent for registration. However, the second respondent 2/9 refused to register the same on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original document in order to prove his title.

4 . This issue has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court recently in WA.No.1160 of 2024 by judgment dated 27.09.2024 . The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“7. The law relating to transfer of immovable property is governed by the substantial enactment namely, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The right to hold property and the right to be not deprived of property without reasonable compensation is a constitutional right ensured under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Being a constitutional right, it is one step superior to even the fundamental rights, as there cannot be a reasonable restriction on the said right and no one can be deprived of the property without reasonable compensation. The right to hold the property also takes in its fold the right to deal with the property. No doubt, the second proviso to rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules mandates that the original of the antecedent document should be produced to enable registration of a subsequent instrument. Of course, a way-out is provided namely, the production of non traceability certificate from the police department. We should also be conscious of the fact that any certificate from any Government department, as of today, comes only at a price for an ordinary citizen. An elaborate procedure has also been fixed for issuance of non traceability certificate. We have come across several instances where, because of the high pricing of and the complicated procedure involved in 3/9 obtaining a non traceability certificate, instances of people obtaining non traceability certificate from the neighbouring States has increased.

8. The fundamental principle of law relating to transfer of immovable property is caveat emptor. A buyer of the property is required to be careful in not purchasing certain properties which are already encumbered or from person who does not have title. Even if a person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908, to enable the Registrar to refuse registration except Section 22-A and Section 22-B, which have been introduced recently in the year 2022 by the State Legislature insofar as Tamil Nadu is concerned. Even Section 22-A and Section 22-B do not authorise refusal of registration on the ground that the original of the prior's title deed has not been produced. We are unable to resist observing that Rule 55-A has been stealthily introduced as a subordinate legislation only to enable Registrars refuse to register instruments indiscriminately. Neither Section 22-A nor Section 22-B authorise a Registrar to refuse to register instruments on the grounds specified un