2011 (2) LW 648
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. JYOTHIMANI
K.S. Vijayendran
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration & Another
W.P.No.4952 of 2011
Decided on : 18-03-2011
Registration Act - Settlement Deed - Section 71, Section 34, Section 35, Rule 55, Rule 162
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner executed a settlement deed in favor of his wife and paid the stamp duty and registration charges. The registering authority refused to register the deed, citing the need for the petitioner to produce title deeds and reliance on a circular.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons given by the registering authority for refusing registration were untenable under the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules. The court directed the second respondent to register the document within four weeks.
Issues: Refusal of registration by the second respondent, validity of reasons for refusal, compliance with stamp duty and registration charges
Ratio Decidendi: The registering authority's power to conduct an inquiry before registration is limited to the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules. The authority cannot require the party to produce original title deeds beyond the scope of statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed with a direction to register the document pending before the second respondent.
1. The petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife, D.Muthulakshmi, under a settlement deed dated 23.8.2010 and presented it for registration in the office of the second respondent. The second respondent, without registering the deed and without assigning any reason, is keeping it as pending Document No.P1243 of 2010.
The petitioner has also paid the entire stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the settlement deed. On enquiry, the second respondent has directed the petitioner to produce the title deeds relating to the property sought to be settled by him in favour of his wife, failing which the registration will be refused. The operative portion of the communication of the second respondent dated 15.11.2010 is as follows:
2. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the second respondent has passed an order on 28.1.2011 refusing registration by placing reliance on the circular issued by the first respondent dated 15.9.2010.
3. A reference to the circular dated 15.9.2010, which has been referred to by the second respondent for passing order refusing to register the settlement deed, is only in the form of a guideline explaining about Rule 55 of the Registration Rules in order to avoid registration of bogus documents, which are either prohibited as per law or issued by way of restraint order by the Court.
4. The order dated 28.1.2011 has been passed by the second respondent by virtue of the power conferred under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, which is as follows:
"Section 71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.-
(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his book No.2, and endorse the words 'registration refused' on the document, and on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.
(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered."
Even though the second respondent has passed orders by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, the fact remains that the reason for passing such order of refusal is one which has been made out by him in his communication dated 15.11.2010, elicited above, namely the petitioner has been directed to substantiate his right over the property before registering the same.
5. Law is well settled that it is not for the registering authority to investigate the title in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the document produced before him.
6. The scope of the registering authority to conduct enquiry before registration is limited to various provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 stipulated under Part-IV. By virtue of the power conferred under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authority can conduct enquiry before registration. When a document is presented, the registering authority has to enquire as to whether the document presented by the person was executed by him and also satisfy himself about the the identity of the person appearing before him stated to have executed the document or a person who appears as a representative and to satisfy himself as to the right of such person to represent the person on whose behalf the document is sought to be executed. For the purpose of understanding the power of enquiry by the registering authority, it is relevant to extract Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, which is as follows:
"Section 34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.-
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.