Registration Authorities Can Refuse Registration if Document Genuineness is Doubtful: Madras High Court - 2025-04-16

Madras High Court Upholds Registrar's Refusal to Register Sale Deeds Citing Suspicions of Fraud

Chennai, April 16, 2025 - The Madras High Court has firmly reinforced the authority of registration officials to refuse the registration of documents when there are credible doubts about their genuineness and potential fraudulent intent. A division bench comprising Honourable Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan dismissed writ appeals filed by Ashok Chand and Ashokchand Bansali , upholding the decision of the registration authorities who had declined to register certain sale deeds.

Case Background: Property, Mortgages, and Missing Documents

The case arose from the appellants' attempt to register sale deeds for properties in Tirupur. These properties were previously owned by T. Subramaniam , who had mortgaged them as collateral for loans obtained from Catholic Syrian Bank for his spinning mills, M/s. Nallam Maniam Textile (P) Limited. The original title deeds were deposited with the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in connection with recovery proceedings initiated by the bank, and later by Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. (ARCIL), to whom the Non-Performing Asset (NPA) was assigned.

The appellants presented sale deeds, purportedly executed by the deceased T. Subramaniam , for registration. However, they failed to produce the original title documents, claiming they were lost and submitting a Non-Traceable Certificate (NTC) from the police. The Registration Department, unconvinced, refused registration citing Rule 162A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1983 and Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act, 1908, pointing to the absence of original title documents and the property being under court attachment. The District Registrar affirmed this refusal, leading to the writ petitions which were subsequently dismissed by a single judge, and then appealed.

Arguments from Both Sides: Legality vs. Alleged Fraud

Senior Counsel Mr. V.Raghavachari, representing the appellants, argued that the registration authorities exceeded their jurisdiction. He contended that the Registration Act and Rules do not empower officials to demand original title deeds or refuse registration based on a subsisting mortgage. He cited several precedents arguing that registration cannot be denied on grounds beyond those explicitly listed in the rules. The appellants maintained that even with a mortgage, the sale deed was registrable and their police complaint regarding lost documents was legitimate.

Conversely, the respondents, represented by Senior Counsels Mr. P.H. Arvind Pandian and Mr. A.K.Sriram , and Government Advocate Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, vehemently defended the registration authorities' actions. They presented evidence suggesting that the NTC was fraudulently obtained, pointing to disciplinary actions against the issuing police officer. They highlighted discrepancies in police complaints filed by the appellants and the deceased vendor, T. Subramaniam , and produced documents suggesting forged court orders related to attachment of the property in prior legal proceedings initiated by the appellants themselves. The respondents argued that the appellants were attempting to perpetrate fraud by registering sale deeds for properties whose original title documents were with the DRT, using a fabricated story of lost documents.

Court's Reasoning: Focus on Genuineness and Public Policy

The High Court bench meticulously examined the factual matrix and the relevant rules. They emphasized that while registering officers generally cannot inquire into the validity of a document (Rule 55), an exception exists when there is reason to believe the document is forged or its registration would be against public policy (Rule 162A).

The court scrutinized the documents presented by the respondents, including contradictory police complaints and questionable court summons, observing:

> "Prima facie, the document purporting to be a Court summons, where the date of attachment, attachment being made absolute and lifting of attachment are set out erroneously, and complaint II allegedly signed by T.Subramaniam dated 18.12.2013 appear to be forged and fabricated... The latter document has been filed as an annexure to the documents in question when presented for registration."

The bench further noted the Sub-Registrar’s proactive inquiry, which revealed that the police NTC was indeed dubious, leading to the suspension of the concerned police officer. The court concluded that these circumstances justified the invocation of Rule 162A, as registering fraudulent documents would be against public policy.

"Unclean Hands" and Dismissal with Costs

The court explicitly stated that the appellants approached the court with "unclean hands," attempting to bypass legitimate registration procedures through misrepresentation and potential forgery. Dismissing the appeals, the bench unequivocally confirmed the Writ Court's order and imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000 on the appellants, payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

> "In fine, we unequivocally confirm the order of the Writ Court, additionally putting the appellants to terms of Rs,1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)... These Writ Appeals are dismissed with costs."

This judgment underscores that while registration authorities must adhere to the legal framework, they are not powerless against patent attempts at fraud. Rules 55 and 162A provide them with the necessary discretion to refuse registration when faced with credible evidence of forgery or actions contrary to public policy, ensuring the integrity of the land registration system.