High Court · 2025

W.P. No.23541 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P. No.23541 of 2025andW.M.P. No.26437 of 2025KavithaPetitioner(s)Vs1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.2.Sub Registrar, Vembakkam Sub Registrar Office, Arani Pattai Thru, Vembakkam-604 410.3.C.SivanandhamRespondent(s)PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide RFL / Vembakkam / 18 / 2025 dated 14.02.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to register the document within the time stipulated by this Court.For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.Vijay for Mr.S.SanthoshFor Respondent(s) : Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 2025ORDER By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. In view of the order that this Court proposes to pass and also the limited relief that is sought to be granted, notice to the 3rd Respondent is dispensed with.2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the refusal slip dated 14.02.2025 whereby the petitioner's sale deed was refused registration on the premise that out of 7 parcels of land in respect of land comprised in Survey No.136/B4 measuring an extent of 1.2 cents and 137/B1 and Survey No.137/B1 measuring an extent of 0.30 cents, there is an entry of earlier transaction which is stated in the impugned order as having been made by the persons who may have no authority/ right/ title/ interest over the subject property. The relevant provisions for the right to extent is extracted hereunder:“,ju fhuzq;fs;: jw;fhypf vz; 210130265/2025 Kd; Mtzq;fs; guprPypf;fg;gl;lJ jhq;fs; gjpTf;F jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l nrl;by;nkz;l; Mtz nrhj;Jf;fspy; rpWehty;gl;L fpuhk rh;Nt vz; 136/B4 y; 005 1.2 nrz;l; kw;Wk; 137/B 1 y; 0.30 nrz;l; epyk; cupikapy;yhj NtW egu;fspd; ngaupy; cs;sjhf tpy;yq;fr;rhd;wpy; njupatUtjhy; ,jid rl;lg;gb cupa ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tof;F njhlu;e;J tpy;yq;fr;rhd;wpy; Fwpg;Gfs; ePf;fp tUk;gl;rj;jpy; Mtzk; gjpTf;F Vw;f;fg;gLk; vd MtzjhuUf;F mwpTWj;jp mry; Mtzk; jpUg;gg;gLfpwJ.”2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 20253.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently there is a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 , wherein Rule 55A of Registration Rules was found to be ultra vires in the Registration Act, 1908. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “13. In contrast, Rule 55A empowers the registering officer to refuse registration unless the presentant produces the original deed by which the executant acquired rights over the subject property and an encumbrance certificate pertaining to the property, obtained within ten days from the date of presentation. If the original deed is not available due to its antiquity, the registration of the presented document will be refused unless the presenter produces a revenue record that evidences the executant's right over the subject property. If the original deed is lost, the document cannot be registered unless a non-traceable certificate is issued by the police department along with an advertisement published in the local newspaper, giving notice of the loss of the previous original deed.14. In short, Rule 55A provides that unless documents are produced to prove that the executant has a right in respect of the property subject matter of the instrument, the registration of the same shall be refused. Thus, if a sale deed is presented for registration, documents must be produced to demonstrate that the executant has acquired ownership of the property. In a sense, power has been conferred on the registering officer to verify the title of the executant. Unless documents are produced evidencing title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall be refused.15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 2025property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.16. Therefore, assuming that there is a power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act to frame the Rules, Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) will have to be declared ultra vires the 1908 Act. The rule-making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Rule 55A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act.17. As the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court, relying on Rule 55A(i), and since Rule 55A(i) is held to be invalid, the impugned judgments must be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly.”4. To the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that this is a case where there is more than one document in respect of the same subject property and therefore it may be necessary to enquire if Section 22(b) of the Act, gets attracted. 5. Having considered the submissions of both sides, this Court is of the view that the reasons contained in the impugned order admittedly does not appear to be within the jurisdiction of the registering authority to refuse registration.6. In view thereof, the impugned order is set-aside, the petitioner may re-4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 2025present the sale deed for registration, the concerned respondent shall consider and register the document if it is otherwise in order, if for any reason the registering authority finds that the registration ought to be refused, the same shall be done after assigning reasons. It is open to the respondent authority to examine the Sale Deed presented for registration under the provisions of Registration Act including Sections 22A and 22B, if such enquiry is sought to be made, the petitioner would be put on notice and opportunity of hearing would be offered to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.07.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking OrderIndex : Yes/ NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NomkaMOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 2025mkaTo:1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.2.Sub Registrar, Vembakkam Sub Registrar Office, Arani Pattai Thru, Vembakkam-604 410.W.P. No.23541 of 202504.07.20256/6

W.P. No.23541 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P. No.23541 of 2025andW.M.P. No.26437 of 2025KavithaPetitioner(s)Vs1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.2.Sub Registrar, Vembakkam Sub Registrar Office, Arani Pattai Thru, Vembakkam-604 410.3.C.SivanandhamRespondent(s)PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide RFL / Vembakkam / 18 / 2025 dated 14.02.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to register the document within the time stipulated by this Court.For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.Vijay for Mr.S.SanthoshFor Respondent(s) : Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 2025ORDER By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. In view of the order that this Court proposes to pass and also the limited relief that is sought to be granted, notice to the 3rd Respondent is dispensed with.2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the refusal slip dated 14.02.2025 whereby the petitioner's sale deed was refused registration on the premise that out of 7 parcels of land in respect of land comprised in Survey No.136/B4 measuring an extent of 1.2 cents and 137/B1 and Survey No.137/B1 measuring an extent of 0.30 cents, there is an entry of earlier transaction which is stated in the impugned order as having been made by the persons who may have no authority/ right/ title/ interest over the subject property. The relevant provisions for the right to extent is extracted hereunder:“,ju fhuzq;fs;: jw;fhypf vz; 210130265/2025 Kd; Mtzq;fs; guprPypf;fg;gl;lJ jhq;fs; gjpTf;F jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l nrl;by;nkz;l; Mtz nrhj;Jf;fspy; rpWehty;gl;L fpuhk rh;Nt vz; 136/B4 y; 005 1.2 nrz;l; kw;Wk; 137/B 1 y; 0.30 nrz;l; epyk; cupikapy;yhj NtW egu;fspd; ngaupy; cs;sjhf tpy;yq;fr;rhd;wpy; njupatUtjhy; ,jid rl;lg;gb cupa ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tof;F njhlu;e;J tpy;yq;fr;rhd;wpy; Fwpg;Gfs; ePf;fp tUk;gl;rj;jpy; Mtzk; gjpTf;F Vw;f;fg;gLk; vd MtzjhuUf;F mwpTWj;jp mry; Mtzk; jpUg;gg;gLfpwJ.”2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 20253.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently there is a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 , wherein Rule 55A of Registration Rules was found to be ultra vires in the Registration Act, 1908. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “13. In contrast, Rule 55A empowers the registering officer to refuse registration unless the presentant produces the original deed by which the executant acquired rights over the subject property and an encumbrance certificate pertaining to the property, obtained within ten days from the date of presentation. If the original deed is not available due to its antiquity, the registration of the presented document will be refused unless the presenter produces a revenue record that evidences the executant's right over the subject property. If the original deed is lost, the document cannot be registered unless a non-traceable certificate is issued by the police department along with an advertisement published in the local newspaper, giving notice of the loss of the previous original deed.14. In short, Rule 55A provides that unless documents are produced to prove that the executant has a right in respect of the property subject matter of the instrument, the registration of the same shall be refused. Thus, if a sale deed is presented for registration, documents must be produced to demonstrate that the executant has acquired ownership of the property. In a sense, power has been conferred on the registering officer to verify the title of the executant. Unless documents are produced evidencing title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall be refused.15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 2025property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.16. Therefore, assuming that there is a power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act to frame the Rules, Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) will have to be declared ultra vires the 1908 Act. The rule-making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Rule 55A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act.17. As the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court, relying on Rule 55A(i), and since Rule 55A(i) is held to be invalid, the impugned judgments must be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly.”4. To the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that this is a case where there is more than one document in respect of the same subject property and therefore it may be necessary to enquire if Section 22(b) of the Act, gets attracted. 5. Having considered the submissions of both sides, this Court is of the view that the reasons contained in the impugned order admittedly does not appear to be within the jurisdiction of the registering authority to refuse registration.6. In view thereof, the impugned order is set-aside, the petitioner may re-4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 2025present the sale deed for registration, the concerned respondent shall consider and register the document if it is otherwise in order, if for any reason the registering authority finds that the registration ought to be refused, the same shall be done after assigning reasons. It is open to the respondent authority to examine the Sale Deed presented for registration under the provisions of Registration Act including Sections 22A and 22B, if such enquiry is sought to be made, the petitioner would be put on notice and opportunity of hearing would be offered to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.07.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking OrderIndex : Yes/ NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NomkaMOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.23541 of 2025mkaTo:1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.2.Sub Registrar, Vembakkam Sub Registrar Office, Arani Pattai Thru, Vembakkam-604 410.W.P. No.23541 of 202504.07.20256/6