Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
The petitioners – Appellant
Versus
the second respondent – Respondent
W.A.No.271 of 2024|W.A.No.1160 of 2024|W.P.No.674 of 2020|W.P. No.11056 of 2024|W.P. No.33601 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:Mr. Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General
The proviso to Rule 55A requiring original parent documents for registration is ultra vires; certified copies suffice, and the Registrar cannot lawfully refuse registration on that ground.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 2000 - Rule 55A and its provisos - Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 22-A, 22-B, 68, and 69 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 6, 7, 19(b), 41, 42, 43, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57 - Specific Relief Act, Sections 13 and 19(b).
(B) Proviso to Rule 55A mandating production of original parent documents for registration lacks statutory authority and results in arbitrary exercise of power; certified copies and office verification suffice for registration. ("the effect of the first proviso is clearly an arbitrary exercise of power").
(C) Transfer of immovable property law - Multiple successive transfers are permitted, subject to prior rights; registration of an agreement for sale does not bar subsequent transfers by the owner, including settlement deeds. ("there is no bar for creating subsequent transfer of the immovable property" and "merely on the basis of the agreement for sale...the registrar refused to register...which is against the very substantive law of the country").
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought registration of a settlement deed relinquishing shares in immovable property inherited from their father. The second respondent refused registration, demanding production of the original parent deed as per Rule 55A proviso.
Findings of Court:
The court held that Rule 55A proviso compelling original deed production lacks statutory backing and results in unjustifiable refusal of registration. Certified copies should suffice, especially when originals can be verified by the registration office. The impugned refusal was therefore quashed.
Issues: Whether the Registrar can refuse registration of a settlement deed for non-production of the original parent document under Rule 55A proviso, and whether prior registration of an agreement for sale prohibits subsequent transfers of the immovable property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the proviso to Rule 55A exceeds delegated legislative power and conflicts with the statutory scheme under the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act, which permit successive transfers subject to prior rights. Hence, refusal to register for non-production of original parent deed is unlawful and violates the constitutional right to deal with property. Certified copies and office verification suffice.
Result: The impugned refusal check slip dated 01.11.2023 is quashed. Petitioners are directed to re-present the settlement deed, and the Registrar must register it without insisting on original parent document production. Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and procedural posture of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on rule 55a and successive transfers under transfer of property act (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court’s analysis invalidating refusal to register without original documents and affirming owner’s rights (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent dated 01.11.2023, thereby refusing to register the settlement deed which was presented for registration on the ground that the petitioners failed to produce the original parent document 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 petitioners father Palpandi was the owner of the property comprised in Survey Nos.402/2B, 403/3B2, 420/1B, 421/1B, 422/1, 422/2, 423/2, 424/1, 382/1A1A, 382/1A1C, 382/3B, 636 and 639 situated at Venkataramanujapuram Village, Thiruchendur Taluk and Survey Nos.440/2, Muthaloor Village, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District along with some other properties. After the demise of his father, the legal heirs agreed to relinquish their shares in the scheduled property to proceed to settlement deed. After execution of the settlement deed, it was presented for registration before the second respondent. However, the second 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 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 com
