Supreme Court To Hear Challenge To Constitutional Validity Of Rule Allowing Registrar To Refuse Property Registration In Tamil Nadu

Pursuant to a petition filed assailing a Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed, the Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which gives power to a Registrar to refuse registration of an immoveable property.

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 person presenting 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.

The matter is listed before a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih, which has permitted the petitioner to amend his writ petition in order to challenge the vires of the subject rule.

Briefly put, the petitioner, claiming title based on an unregistered Will, presented a sale deed document before the concerned Sub-Registrar for registration of a property in his name. However, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the said document, stating that the legal heirs of the vendor were not mentioned therein and the petitioner had not established his title and ownership, as required under Rule 55A. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court.

This writ petition was disposed of, on the view that the document had to be registered after including all the legal heirs who were entitled to the property, or the petitioner could approach the competent Civil Court for the purpose of establishing his right over the subject property.

Subsequent to this order, the petitioner again submitted the sale deed document for registration. But, the Sub-Registrar returned it and issued a refusal check slip.

As per claims, a relative of the vendor produced a legal heir certificate to the Sub-Registrar and the latter sent the certificate for verification of its genuineness. On enquiry, it was found that the certification was fake. Be that as it may, the Sub-Registrar returned the document to the petitioner.

Assailing the refusal, the petitioner again approached the High Court which dismissed his petition in light of the order of the co-ordinate bench that the sale deed document had to be registered after including all the legal heirs or the petitioner could approach the competent Civil Court. The petitioner was given liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

In appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the Single Bench. It was stated, "When doubt arises and the legal heirs are not impleaded, the parties are to be relegated to approach the Civil Court and in the present case, the Writ Court has rightly done so".

Against the order of the Division Bench, the petitioner filed the present petition.

In related news, the Madras High Court recently held that Rule 55A has no statutory authority and was introduced only to enable Registrars to refuse registration of instruments indiscriminately.

Counsels for petitioner: AoR Qurratulain; Advocates Uzmi Jameel Husain and Mohd Parvez Dabas

Counsels for respondent(s): AoR Sabarish Subramanian; Advocates C Kranthi Kumar, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, VM Eashwar and Danish Saifi

Case Title: K. GOPI v. THE SUB REGISTRAR & ORS., SLP(C) No. 12167/2024