The judgment affirmed that Sub-Registrars cannot refuse registration based on administrative directives or unsupported claims, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory norms and judicially established principles.

ORDER

Every day there will be number of cases listed in the admission motion relating to challenge of refusal slip issued by the Sub-Registrar for one reason or other mainly based on the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration.

2. Despite the law declared by this Court in various cases, it is brought to the notice of this Court whenever the judgment of this Court brought to the notice of the Sub Registrars, routine answers given by them were that above judgment apply only to facts of the particular case. Therefore, they are not bound by the judgment. Ignoring the said settled principle of law, slips were regularly issued by the authorities. Thus, this Court is of the view that in order to effective implementation of the Court orders and also to maintain uniform guidelines in this regard is of the view that this matter required to be dealt comprehensively. Only in that purpose, the Inspector General of Reigstration is also impleaded in the matter.

3. Challenge has been made to the refusal check-slip issued by the first respondent in RFL/Rasipuram/104/2024 dated 05.04.2024, quash the same and direct the first respondent to register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner.

4. The refusal slip has been issued by the respondent is on the ground that since an appeal is pending as against the preliminary decree in A.No.45 of 2018, the sale deed presented by the petitioner has not been registered. Challenging the same, this writ petition.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the refusal slip issued by the first respondent is not according to law and they will comply the Order within the time stipulated by this Court.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

7. This Court is of the view that the refusal slip cannot sustained in the eye of law. When the law permits decree to be registered, it cannot be said that only based on the final decree documents can be registered, as in the preliminary decree, the shares of the parties have been determined.

Accordingly, the refusal slip is liable to be quashed.

8. It is relevant to note that the powers of the Sub Registrar is governed by the provisions of the Registration Act. Therefore, he has to perform the duty strictly in terms of the power conferred by the Registration Act.

9. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules set out various circumstances under which the Registrar may refuse to register the document. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules reads as follows:

"162. When registration is refused the reasons for refusal shall be at once recorded in Book 2. They will usually come under one or more of the heads mentioned below---

I. Section 19.---That the document is written in a language which the Registering Officer does not understand and which is not commonly used in the District, and that it is unaccompanied by a true translation and a true copy.

II. Section 20.---That it contains unattested interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations which in the opinion of the Registering Officer require to be attested.

III. Section 21.---(1) to (3) and Section 22.-- That the description of the property is insufficient to identify it or does not contain the information required by Rule 18.

IV. Section 21(4).---That the document is unaccompanied by a copy or copies of any map or plan which it contains.

V. Rule 32.---That the date of execution is not stated in the document or that the correct date is not ascertainable.

VI. Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 72, 75 and 77.---That it is presented after the prescribed time.

VII. Sections 32, 33, 40 and 43.---That it is presented by a person who has no right to present it.

VIII. Section 34.---That the executing parties or their representatives, assigns, or agents have failed to appear within the prescribed time.

IX. Sections 34 and 43.---That the Registering Officer is not satisfied as to the identity of a person appearing before him who alleges that he has executed the document.