High Court · 2025
Case Details
W.P.No.27412 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.07.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.No.27412 of 2025K.Sambasivam ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Sub-Registrar, Konnur Sub-Registrar's Office, Konnur, Chennai-600 023.2.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-600 028. ... RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in respect of the order passed by the first respondent under Refusal No.RFL/Konnur/13/2024 dated 31.12.2024 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to register the aforesaid Settlement Deed dated 31.12.2024 executed by the petitioner to and in favour of his son K.S.Sudarsanan and pass orders. For Petitioner(s):Mr.Najeeb Usman Khan_________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025 For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader O R D E RBy consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 31.12.2024 issued by first respondent, whereby the settlement deed dated 31.12.2024 was refused to be registered, on the premise that original title document was not available and secondly, there was no signature in the witness column3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the the above reasons for refusal is ill-founded and contrary to the decision 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, wherein it was held as _________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025under:“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 _________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025register 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 property 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.”3.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the above order of the Apex Court a Circular in _________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025Lr.No.44420/C1/2024 dated 28.04.2025 also came to be issued, wherein instructions have been issued that the registering officer shall not refuse to register only on the ground of non furnishing of the original documents. The relevant portion of the Circular is extracted hereunder:“CircularLr.No.44420/C1/2024. DT. 28.04.2025.....(4) In other words the Registering Officer shall not insist production of Original Previous documents or Non-Traceable Certificate from the Police Department or Encumbrance Certificate and other Revenue details from the Registrants.” 3.2. Insofar as the witness column is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the same would be rectified. 4. When this was pointed out, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that if the settlement deed dated _________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 202531.12.2024 is re-presented by the petitioner, the same would be registered, if it is otherwise in order, in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar (supra) and the consequential Circular in Lr.No.44420/C1/2024 dated 28.04.2025. If, for any reason, the Sub Registrar is of the view that the registration ought to be refused, he would do so after assigning reasons, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.5. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the first respondent dated 31.12.2024 is hereby set aside. It is open to the petitioner to re-present the settlement deed dated 31.12.2024 before the first respondent. On such representation, the first respondent shall register the settlement deed, if it is otherwise in order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar (supra) and the instructions laid down in Circular Lr.No.44420/C1/2024 dated 28.04.2025. If for any reason, the first respondent refuses to register the settlement deed, he shall assign reasons in the refusal slip, which was _________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025agreed to by both counsel for petitioner as well as respondents. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There will be no orders to costs. 30.07.2025NCC: Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order : Yes / NomrnTo1.The Sub-Registrar, Konnur Sub-Registrar's Office, Konnur, Chennai-600 023.2.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-600 028. _________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.mrnW.P.No.27412 of 202530.07.2025_________Page 8 of 8
W.P.No.27412 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.07.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.No.27412 of 2025K.Sambasivam ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Sub-Registrar, Konnur Sub-Registrar's Office, Konnur, Chennai-600 023.2.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-600 028. ... RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in respect of the order passed by the first respondent under Refusal No.RFL/Konnur/13/2024 dated 31.12.2024 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to register the aforesaid Settlement Deed dated 31.12.2024 executed by the petitioner to and in favour of his son K.S.Sudarsanan and pass orders. For Petitioner(s):Mr.Najeeb Usman Khan_________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025 For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader O R D E RBy consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 31.12.2024 issued by first respondent, whereby the settlement deed dated 31.12.2024 was refused to be registered, on the premise that original title document was not available and secondly, there was no signature in the witness column3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the the above reasons for refusal is ill-founded and contrary to the decision 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, wherein it was held as _________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025under:“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 _________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025register 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 property 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.”3.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the above order of the Apex Court a Circular in _________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025Lr.No.44420/C1/2024 dated 28.04.2025 also came to be issued, wherein instructions have been issued that the registering officer shall not refuse to register only on the ground of non furnishing of the original documents. The relevant portion of the Circular is extracted hereunder:“CircularLr.No.44420/C1/2024. DT. 28.04.2025.....(4) In other words the Registering Officer shall not insist production of Original Previous documents or Non-Traceable Certificate from the Police Department or Encumbrance Certificate and other Revenue details from the Registrants.” 3.2. Insofar as the witness column is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the same would be rectified. 4. When this was pointed out, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that if the settlement deed dated _________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 202531.12.2024 is re-presented by the petitioner, the same would be registered, if it is otherwise in order, in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar (supra) and the consequential Circular in Lr.No.44420/C1/2024 dated 28.04.2025. If, for any reason, the Sub Registrar is of the view that the registration ought to be refused, he would do so after assigning reasons, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.5. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the first respondent dated 31.12.2024 is hereby set aside. It is open to the petitioner to re-present the settlement deed dated 31.12.2024 before the first respondent. On such representation, the first respondent shall register the settlement deed, if it is otherwise in order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar (supra) and the instructions laid down in Circular Lr.No.44420/C1/2024 dated 28.04.2025. If for any reason, the first respondent refuses to register the settlement deed, he shall assign reasons in the refusal slip, which was _________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025agreed to by both counsel for petitioner as well as respondents. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There will be no orders to costs. 30.07.2025NCC: Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order : Yes / NomrnTo1.The Sub-Registrar, Konnur Sub-Registrar's Office, Konnur, Chennai-600 023.2.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-600 028. _________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27412 of 2025MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.mrnW.P.No.27412 of 202530.07.2025_________Page 8 of 8