Case Analysis:  P Pappu v The Sub Registrar, 2024 Live Law (Mad) 379

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

In a recent ruling of the Madras High Court in W.A.No.1160 of 2024, the division bench consists of Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel addressed the validity of Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which mandates that a registering officer requires the presentation of the original deed and an Encumbrance Certificate before registering documents related to immovable property. The court expressed concerns that this rule was introduced to empower registrars to refuse registration arbitrarily, which goes against the intentions of the Registration Act.

Key Points of the Judgment:

1. Critique of Rule 55A: The court observed that Rule 55A seems to allow registrars to indiscriminately deny registration of instruments, potentially leading to bureaucratic overreach. They stated that neither Section 22-A nor Section 22-B of the Registration Act provides registrars with the authority to refuse registration based on the criteria outlined in Rule 55A.
2. Legislative Authority: The Judges pointed out that while Section 69 of the Registration Act allows the Inspector General to make rules, such rules must align with the Act’s provisions and cannot contradict them. The court determined that Rule 55A overstepped this authority.
3. Practical Challenges for Citizens: The court highlighted the difficulties ordinary citizens face in obtaining original documents, often incurring costs when dealing with government offices. They noted that while a non-traceability certificate could bypass the original document requirement, obtaining such certificates could lead to underhand dealings, as citizens might resort to unofficial means to secure them.
4. Verification of Documents: The court emphasized that if certified copies of documents are available in the Sub-Registrar’s office, insisting on the original document is unnecessary. They argued that the registrars could verify the authenticity of these copies without further burdening the parties involved.
5. Case Background: The ruling stemmed from an appeal filed by Appellant against a single judge’s order that upheld the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register a release deed concerning certain immovable properties. Appellant’s counsel argued that Rule 55A contradicts the Registration Act and sought its invalidation.
6. Response from the Additional Advocate General: The state argued that Rule 55A was essential to prevent fraudulent transactions and the creation of multiple encumbrances. They maintained that there was no absolute ban on registering documents without the original if a non-traceability certificate was provided.
7. Final Ruling: The court ultimately set aside the single judge’s order, directing the Sub-Registrar to register the release deed without requiring the original document, thus reaffirming the need for practical and accessible registration processes.

These ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that legislative rules remain consistent with the underlying laws and accessible to the public, while also addressing concerns about potential fraud in property transactions.