In P. Pappu Vs The Sub Registrar Rasipuram [W.A. No. 1160 of 2024], division bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that when certified copies of title deeds are produced and the sub registrar can verify them with records available, requiring production of originals or Non-Traceable certificate is a wasteful exercise as contemplated under Rule 55A of the TN Registration Rules.
CASE SUMMARY
FACTS IN BRIEF:
- The Appellant sought registration of a release deed relinquishing her right over a property in favour of her brother.
- It was not in dispute that the property originally belonged to their deceased father through a partition deed and sale deed;
- Revenue records also stood in the name of the Appellant’s father;
- Sub – Registrar issued refusal slip relying on Rule 55A of the TN Registration Rules requiring production of originals of earlier title deeds though certified copies were produced;
- Refusal slip was put to challenge in the writ petition which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the writ appeal is preferred.
SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT:
- Rule 55A pointed out as violation of Constitutional right to hold property enshrined under Article 300A by a single judge of the High Court in W.P. No. 2758 of 2023;
- In M. Ariyanatchi & Anr Vs The IGR, Chennai [W.A. (MD) 856 of 2023] Division Bench of the High Court had held that production of originals need not be insisted upon in all cases across the board without application of mind relying on Rule 55A of the TN Registration Rules;
- In Punithavathy Vs IGR, Chennai [W.A. No. 1571 of 2024], Division Bench of the Court quashed a similar refusal slip;
- Rule 55A is a sub-ordinate legislation infringing upon substantive law laid down in primary legislations like Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Registration Act, 1908;
- State law cannot infringe upon Central Law when assent of the President is not obtained when matter pertains to a subject in the Concurrent List.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT:
- Rule 55A introduced only to prevent fraudulent transactions;
- Certified copies can be produced along with Non-Traceable Certificate when originals are lost;
- When the original document lost is a partition deed, even requirement of Non-Traceable Certificate is dispensed with;
- Source of the rule is traceable to power of superintendence of Registrar under Section 68 of the Registration Act.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Writ Appeal allowed setting aside order of the single judge in writ petition. No cost.
REASONS:
- Rule 55A prima facie overreaches legislations (inconsistent with Registration Act and right to hold and handle property under the Transfer of property Act). However, Court was not willing to go into the question of constitutional validity of the provision in this appeal;
- list of matters enumerated in the Rule making power of Inspector General of Registration under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not encompass rule stipulated in Rule 55A of the TN Registration Rules;
- There is no provision under the Registration Act enabling Registrar to refuse registration even if the property does not belong to the person who sells, except Sections 22A and 22B inserted by State legislature of TN in 2022. Even those provisions do not authorise refusal of registration on the ground of non-production of original title deeds;
- Rule 55A has been stealthily introduced to enable registrars to indiscriminately refuse registration;
- In Punivathy’s case (referred by the Appellant as stated above), Court has held that registrars shall not refuse registration particularly when the parties to the documents are relatives and they risk of obtaining the document without examining the title;
- Obtaining non- traceable certificate from Government offices comes with a price and would encourage under hand dealings;
- When certified copies are produced and the sub registrar can verify them with records available, requiring production of Non-Traceable certificate is a wasteful exercise.
Date of the judgment: 27.09.2024
Counsels:
For the Appellant: Mr. N. Manoharan;
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Ramanlal, Additional Advocate General
(This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.)
Comments