High Court · 2025
Case Details
W.P.No.30555 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQW.P.No.30555 of 2025andWMP No.34240 of 2025Selvi: PetitionerVs.1.Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai puram, Chennai 600 0282.The Sub Registrar, Ambur, Tamil Nadu 635 802: RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent in Refusal Check Slip bearing No.RFL/Ambur/44/2025 dated 09.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to register the release deed dated 02.05.2025.For Petitioner : Mr.Harsha Varthan,for Mr.Sharath ChandranFor Respondents : Mrs.A.Bakkiyalakshmi,Government Advocate ORDER1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 2025By 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 refusal check slip dated 09.05.2025 issued by second respondent, whereby release deed dated 02.05.2025 was refused registration on the premise that the original title documents have not been furnished. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above reason do not justify refusal to register the release deed inasmuch as it is 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 of the Registration Act, 1908. 3.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740, held as under:“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 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 2025pertaining 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 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 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 2025right, 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.” 3.2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above order of the Apex Court in K. Gopi cited supra, a Circular in Lr.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.” 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 20254. When this was pointed out, learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that if the release deed dated 02.05.2025 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 instructions laid down in Circular 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 second respondent dated 09.05.2025 is hereby set aside. It is open to the petitioner to re-present the release deed dated 02.05.2025 and if any such release deed is re-presented, second respondent shall register the release deed, if it is otherwise in order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Surpeme court in the case of K. Gopi cited supra and the instructions laid down in Circular Lr.No.44420/C1/2024 dated 28.04.2025. If for any reason, the second respondent refuses to register the release deed, he shall assign reasons in the refusal slip/order.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 20256. In the result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.08.2025Speaking (or) Non Speaking OrderNeutral Citation: Yes/NomrnTo1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai puram, Chennai 600 0282.The Sub Registrar, Ambur, Tamil Nadu 635 8026/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 2025MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.(mrn)W.P.No.30555 of 202522.08.20257/7
W.P.No.30555 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQW.P.No.30555 of 2025andWMP No.34240 of 2025Selvi: PetitionerVs.1.Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai puram, Chennai 600 0282.The Sub Registrar, Ambur, Tamil Nadu 635 802: RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent in Refusal Check Slip bearing No.RFL/Ambur/44/2025 dated 09.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to register the release deed dated 02.05.2025.For Petitioner : Mr.Harsha Varthan,for Mr.Sharath ChandranFor Respondents : Mrs.A.Bakkiyalakshmi,Government Advocate ORDER1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 2025By 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 refusal check slip dated 09.05.2025 issued by second respondent, whereby release deed dated 02.05.2025 was refused registration on the premise that the original title documents have not been furnished. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above reason do not justify refusal to register the release deed inasmuch as it is 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 of the Registration Act, 1908. 3.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740, held as under:“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 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 2025pertaining 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 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 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 2025right, 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.” 3.2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above order of the Apex Court in K. Gopi cited supra, a Circular in Lr.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.” 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 20254. When this was pointed out, learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that if the release deed dated 02.05.2025 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 instructions laid down in Circular 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 second respondent dated 09.05.2025 is hereby set aside. It is open to the petitioner to re-present the release deed dated 02.05.2025 and if any such release deed is re-presented, second respondent shall register the release deed, if it is otherwise in order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Surpeme court in the case of K. Gopi cited supra and the instructions laid down in Circular Lr.No.44420/C1/2024 dated 28.04.2025. If for any reason, the second respondent refuses to register the release deed, he shall assign reasons in the refusal slip/order.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 20256. In the result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.08.2025Speaking (or) Non Speaking OrderNeutral Citation: Yes/NomrnTo1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai puram, Chennai 600 0282.The Sub Registrar, Ambur, Tamil Nadu 635 8026/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30555 of 2025MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.(mrn)W.P.No.30555 of 202522.08.20257/7