Rule 55-A TN Registration Rules Has No Statutory Authority, Introduced Only To Enable Registrars To Refuse Registration Indiscriminately: Madras HC

As per Rule 55A, The registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel observed that the Rule was introduced only to enable Registrars to refuse to register instruments indiscriminately. The court added that the Registrars were conferred certain powers under Section 68 of the Registration Act, and the power to issue any order needed to be consistent with the Act.

“We are unable to resist observing that Rule 55-A has been stealthily introduced as a subordinate legislation only to enable Registrars refuse to register instruments indiscriminately. Neither Section 22-A nor Section 22-B authorise a Registrar to refuse to register instruments on the grounds specified under Rule 55-A,” the court said.

The court added that while Section 69 gave powers to the Inspector General to make rules, the rules so framed should be consistent with the provisions of the Act and could not override the provisions of the Registration Act. The court observed that Rule 55A prima facie, overreached the legislation and was beyond the powers of the Inspector General under Section 69.

Commenting on the difficulty that ordinary people face in obtaining the original documents, the court said that any document from a government department came at a price for ordinary citizens. The court added that though the requirement of the original deed could be surpassed by producing a non-traceability certificate, the difficulty involved in obtaining the certificate would result in underhand dealings. The court added that when the original documents were available in the Sub-registrars office itself, insisting upon the non-traceability certificate rather than verifying it on their own was a wasteful exercise.

“As we had already stated, it is a common knowledge and accepted phenomena today that one cannot secure a certificate from a Government office without the price. In such situation, driving executant of documents to obtain a non traceability certificate in case of lost document in every case, will result only in encouraging under hand dealings. When certificed copies have been produced and it is not impossible for the Sub Registrar to have it verified with the original record that is available in his own office, insisting upon a non traceability certificate appears to be rather a wasteful exercise,” the court observed.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Pappu against a single judge order refusing to interfere with the Sub-Registrar's decision to not register a document relinquishing her rights over certain immovable properties to her brother.

Manokaran, appearing for Pappu contended that Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules was against the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 and that it runs counter to various provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. He submitted that by putting the Rule in subordinate legislation, the State has tried to circumvent the provisions of Article 245 of the Constitution as per which the President's approval was necessary while introducing any state law inconsistent with the central enactment.

The Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that the Rule was introduced to prevent fraudulent transactions and creation of multiple encumbrances over the property which ultimately led to multiple legal proceedings. He submitted that there was no absolute bar on registering documents without the original of parent copy provided that the applicant produces a non-traceability certificate. It was further submitted that as per the clarifications, the need for the non-traceability certificate was dispensed with if shown that the original document was a partition deed which was in the custody of someone else.

The court noted that the parties had produced the registered copies of the antecedent documents which were registered in the very same office. The court thus noted that unless the Registrar had a doubt regarding the genuineness of the copies issued by his own office, insistence on producing the original was a superfluous exercise.

The court thus set aside the order of the single judge and directed the Sub Registrar to register the release deed without insisting on producing the original.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.N.Manokaran

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.R.Ramanlaal, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

Case Title: P Pappu v The Sub Registrar

Case No: W.A.No.1160 of 2024