R.Thirupathi @ Elavarasan v. The Inspector General Of Registrtion

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR R.Thirupathi @ Elavarasan .. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028 2.The District Registrar (Administration) Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District 3.The No.2, Joint Sub Registrar Krishnagiri Sub Registrar Office Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Taluk and District .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip order of Refusal dated 05.06.2024 made in No. RFL/2 of the 3rd Respondent and to quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent herein to register the Sale Deed dated 05.06.2024 executed by the petitioner in favour of Mrs.Jayakodi. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

1/6

This writ petition is filed to quash the Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number: RFL/2 dated dated 05.06.2024 and consequently direct the third respondent to register the same without insisting for production of original document.

2. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that when the sale deed was presented for registration, the second respondent refused to register the same on the ground that as per the circular of the Inspector General of Registration, the originals were not produced.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. I have perused entire records. This Court in Federal Bank Vs. Sub Registrar and two others in W.P.No.2758 of 2023 dated 08.02.2023, has held as follows :

"22. Similarly, the second proviso requires the executant to produce a revenue record to show his "right over the subject property" where the property is ancestral in character and there is no original deed available. Even a tax receipt can be produced under this proviso which is opposed to 2/6

the fundamental principle of law that revenue records are not documents of title [State of A.P. v Star Bone Mill and Fertilizer Company, 2013 9 SCC 319]. Production of revenue documents to verify the source of title only demonstrates complete ignorance of the settled position of law.

23. Similarly, the third proviso also defies logic. If the original is lost, it is not understood as to why a certified copy of that document obtained from the file of the concerned SRO cannot be produced. When the best evidence is not available, the best course is to produce a certified copy which is the next best available alternative. Instead, the third proviso requires the executant to obtain a non-traceable certificate and effect paper publication.

24. It is also well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2007) 13 SCC 673 that a subordinate legislation may be struck down as arbitrary or contrary to statute if it fails to take into account vital facts which expressly or by necessary implication are required to be taken into account by the statute or the Constitution. Furthermore, Rule 55-A is a delegated legislation which cannot go beyond the scope of the Parent Act viz., the Registration Act as well the Transfer of Property Act which is the substantive law governing the transfer of immovable properties. Hence, the first proviso is clearly ultra vires and unconstitutional."

5. Considering the above and also of the fact the circular cannot override the statutory right and substantive provisions of law, the third respondent cannot refuse the registration of the document citing non production of original. They can very well verify the certified copies available with them.

6. Such view of the matter, the refusal check slip issued by the third respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to register the sale deed dated 05.06.2024 without insisting the production of originals within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 3/6

7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

18.06.2024 dhk Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No : Yes/No To 1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028 4/6

2.The District Registrar (Administration) Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District 3.The No.2, Joint Sub Registrar Krishnagiri Sub Registrar Office Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Taluk and District 5/6

N. SATHISH KUMAR , J.

dhk W.P.No.16919 of 2024 01.07.2024 6/6