Section 55 A of TN Registration Rules does not have statutory authority: Madras HC

The order was passed on an appeal filed by P Pappu challenging the 'refusal check slip' issued by the sub-registrar of Rasipuram in Namakkal district.
Madras High Court
Madras High CourtPhoto | Express
Updated on
2 min read

CHENNAI: Madras High Court has commented that section 55 A of Tamil Nadu Registration Rules does not have the statutory authority while quashing an order of sub-registrar to refuse to register a document without the originals of the property title.

“The power conferred under section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908, is only a supervisory jurisdiction and it invests the power in the registrars to issue any order consistent with the Act. As we already observed, the provision of section 55-A inserted in the (TN Registration) Rules has no statutory authority,” said a division bench of Justices R Subramanian and R Sakthivel, in a recent order.

The rules framed by the Inspector General (IG) of Registration, by exercising the powers conferred under section 69 of the Registration Act 'shall be consistent' with the provisions of the Act and 'cannot override' them, the bench explained.

Pointing out that clause 20 has been added to Rule 162 to enable the registrar to refuse registration, if the presentant does not produce the original deed or record specified in Rule 55A, the bench said, “… we must record that prima facie, the rule overreaches the legislation and it is beyond the powers of the IG of Registration under Section 69.”

The order was passed on an appeal filed by P Pappu challenging the 'refusal check slip' issued by the sub-registrar of Rasipuram in Namakkal district declining her request for registering a property release document, transferring her inherited property to her brother, and the order of a single judge who had refused to accept her prayer.

The bench held that unless the registrar has a doubt regarding the genuineness of the copies issued by his own office, insistence on production of originals is a superfluous exercise.

Referring to the order in a related matter (Punithavathy case), it said the registrars cannot refuse to register documents when the parties are relatives; and the concerned officer could have verified the original documents available in his own office.

The bench commented, “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.”

The bench quashed the impugned refusal check slip and the single judge’s order while directing the concerned sub-registrar to register the document within 15 days.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com