The Court ruled that a circular cannot override statutory provisions, allowing registration of documents despite absence of originals under specific conditions.

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned refusal check slip, dated 23.01.2025 issued by the first respondent and consequently direct the first respondent to register the sale deed, dated 22.01.2025 presented by the petitioner.

2. In the impugned refusal check slip the respondents have stated that the petitioner had not produced the original copy of the earlier deeds, hence as per Circular No.25600/C1/2018 dated 07.06.2018, the sale deed cannot be registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue is already considered by Hon’ble Division Bench in Pappu Vs. Sub Register, Rasipuram in W.A.No.1160 of 2024 reported in (2024) 6 MLJ 55 wherein it is held as under:

“3. Mr.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules itself is against the provisions of the parent Act namely, the Registration Act, 1908. He would submit that it runs counter to various provisions of the substantive law relating to transfer of immovable property namely, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. If a State legislature intends to enact the law which will be inconsistent with the central enactment in respect of matters enumerated in List III of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, Article 245 of the Constitution of India requires that the State law should be reserved for the assent of the President and upon such assent being granted after the President is apprised of the inconsistency, the State law would prevail in that State. He would point out by placing Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules in the subordinate legislation that the State has circumvented the provisions of Article 245 of the Constitution of India. He would therefore submit that the very rule which lays down several conditions for registration of instruments of transfer of immovable property being inconsistent with the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it cannot be invoked by the Sub Registrar indiscriminately to deny registration of instruments.

4. The learned counsel would further point out that mechanical application of rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, will only lead to even a genuine transfer instruments being refused registration. He would also draw our attention to two Division Bench judgments of this Court to which one of us (R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) was a party. The first judgment relied upon by him is M.Ariyanatchi and another vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai , and another [W.A(MD)No. 856 of 2023, dated 27.06.2023], wherein, this Court had taken note of the very same provision and held that production of original documents, where it is claimed that it is lost, need not be insisted upon in all cases across the board without application of mind. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in Punithavathy vs. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and three others [W.A.No.1571 of 2024, dated 05.06.2024], where, again a refusal check slip issued by the Registrar on the ground of non production of original documents, was quashed. The learned counsel would also draw our attention to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in The Federal Bank Ltd., vs. The Sub Registrar, Pollachi, [W.P.No.2758 of 2023, dated 08.02.2023], where, it was pointed out that the entire rule 55-A violates the constitutional right enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that the judgment in Federal Bank Ltd's case has been appealed against and the appeal is pending. He would also claim that the provision namely, Rule 55-A has been introduced only to prevent fraudulent transactions and creation o