Sub Registrars cannot refuse to register a property transfer document merely because of non production of either the original parent document of the property or a non traceable certificate from the police if the parent document had been lost, the Madras High Court has held. Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel hold that even non traceable certificate from the police need not be submitted if the original document had been lost.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court ruled that Sub Registrars cannot refuse the registration of property transfer documents simply because the original parent document of the property is not produced, or due to the absence of a non-traceable certificate from the police if the parent document has been lost.
In a significant decision, a Division Bench consisting of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel held that it would suffice to submit certified copies of the parent document. The Sub Registrars could always verify the authenticity of these certified copies against the original records available in their office.
The judges emphasized that the right to hold property is a constitutional right under Article 300A, which is superior to fundamental rights as it cannot be subjected to restrictions.
“No one could be deprived of property without a reasonable compensation,”
-the court noted.
Furthermore, the court stated that the right to hold property includes the right to transfer the property through instruments such as sale deeds, gift deeds, and release deeds. The Transfer of Property Act of 1882 governs laws related to the transfer of immovable property.
The court also underscored a key legal principle: caveat emptor, meaning the buyer is solely responsible for verifying the quality and legal standing of the property before making a purchase.
“The buyers of immovable properties must be careful in not purchasing properties from persons who do not hold a proper title or those which were under encumbrance,”
-Justice Subramaniam wrote, authoring the verdict for the Division Bench.
“Even if a person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no provision in the Registration Act of 1908 enabling the Sub Registrar to refuse registration except for Sections 22-A and 22-B, introduced in 2022 by the Tamil Nadu legislature,”
-the Bench added.
These sections, however, do not authorize the refusal of registration due to the non-production of the original parent document. Despite this, the Inspector General of Registration (IGR) had granted such authority to Sub Registrars through Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules.
“We are unable to resist observing that Rule 55-A has been stealthily introduced as a subordinate legislation only to enable Sub Registrars to refuse to register instruments indiscriminately,”
-the Bench criticized.
It pointed out that statutory rules cannot contradict the provisions of the Act.
The judges also addressed the alternative of submitting non-traceable certificates in the event of a lost parent document. However, they highlighted the challenges associated with obtaining these certificates.
“We should also be conscious of the fact that any certificate from any government department, as of today, comes only at a price for an ordinary citizen,”
-the court remarked.
They further elaborated on the complications of this process:
“An elaborate procedure has been fixed for the issuance of non-traceable certificates. We have come across several instances where, because of the high pricing and the complicated procedure involved, people have started obtaining non-traceable certificates from neighboring states.”
This judgment was delivered in response to a writ appeal filed by P. Pappu, whose release deed for transferring her rights over ancestral property to her brother was rejected by the Sub Registrar at Rasipuram in Namakkal district. Her counsel, N. Manokaran, argued that the appellant had submitted a certified copy of the parent document, which had been issued by the same Sub Registrar’s office.
Finding merit in the arguments, the judges stated:
“When a certified copy has been produced and it is not impossible for the Sub Registrar to have it verified with the original record that is available in his own office, insisting upon a non-traceable certificate appears to be a wasteful exercise.”
They also expressed concern over the implications of such requirements, writing:
“Driving the executant of a document to obtain a non-traceable certificate in case of lost documents in every case will only result in encouraging underhand dealings.”
Ultimately, the court overturned the Sub Registrar’s decision to reject the registration and directed the official to proceed with the registration of the release deed without requiring the original parent document.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Madras High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
