The Madras High Court has ruled that Sub registrars can’t refuse to register a property transfer document just because the original parent document of the property or a police report saying the person can’t be found has not been shown.
Madras High Court: Certified Copies Sufficient for Property Registration
A Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel decided that submitting certified copies of the parent document would suffice.
According to Madras High Court rules, the Sub Registrars may always cross-check the authenticity of those copies with the original records in their office.
The judges emphasized that the right to possess property was a constitutional privilege under Article 300A.
Therefore, it was a step above the fundamental rights in that it could not be restricted, and no one could be deprived of property without reasonable compensation.
The right to possess property also includes the right to dispose of the property through a sale deed, gift deed, release deed, and other means.
A substantial enactment known as The Transfer of Property Act of 1882 governed the law regarding the transfer of immovable properties.
The Division Bench stressed caveat emptor, which is the most important legal principle when it comes to the transfer of real property.
In this concept, it is the buyer’s responsibility to decide for themselves if the goods are good quality and fit their needs before they buy them.
Consequently, Justice Subramaniam, in his verdict for the Division Bench, cautioned purchasers of immovable properties to avoid purchasing properties from individuals who lack proper title or those who are under encumbrance.
Sub Registrars Cannot Refuse Registration Due to Lack of Ownership
“In Tamil Nadu, Sections 22-A and 22-B, which were introduced by the State legislature in 2022, are the only provisions in the Registration Act of 1908 that allow the Sub Registrar to refuse registration, even if a person sells a property that does not belong to them,” the Bench said.
Refusal of registration based on non-production of the original progenitor document is also prohibited by Sections 22-A and 22-B.
Nevertheless, the Sub Registrars were granted this authorization by the Inspector General of Registration (IGR) in accordance with Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules.
The Bench stated, “We are unable to resist the observation that Rule 55-A has been covertly introduced as a subordinate legislation solely to enable Sub Registrars to refuse to register instruments indiscriminately.” It also observed that a statutory rule could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
We should also be aware that any certificate issued by a government department is currently only available to ordinary citizens at a cost.
An elaborate procedure has also been established for the issuance of non-traceable certificates.
The judges have observed numerous instances in which individuals have obtained non-traceable certificates from neighboring states due to the complex procedure and high cost.
Madras High Court Reverses Registration Rejection Order:
The judgment was rendered in response to a writ appeal submitted by P. Pappu.
The Sub Registrar at Rasipuram in Namakkal district had refused to register her release deed, which was intended to transfer her rights over an ancestral property to her brother.
However, the appellant had submitted a certified copy of the primary document, which was issued by the same Sub Registrar’s office, as her counsel, N. Manokaran, pointed out.
The judges found his submissions persuasive and stated, “It appears to be a rather wasteful exercise to insist on a non-traceable certificate when a certified copy has been produced and the Sub Registrar can have it verified with the original record that is available in his own office.”
The Bench also stated that “in every instance, the pursuit of a non-traceable certificate by the executant of a document in the event of a lost document will only serve to promote underhanded dealings.”
It ultimately overturned the registration rejection order and subsequently instructed the Sub Registrar to register the release deed executed by the appellant without requiring the production of the original parent document.