Allowed

M.Pachai Pillai v. The Joint Sub Registrar II

Madras HC26 Jul 2023WP/1179/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order refusing registration of a sale deed for lack of original title documents, the High Court held that Rule 55A of the Registration Rules, read with Section 22B of the Registration Act, allows the registering authority to verify a certified copy. The court quashed the refusal order and directed registration within four weeks upon submission of such a certified

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.11.2022 is quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a certified copy of the title document for verification to complete registration within four weeks.

M.Pachai Pillai Vs The Joint Sub Registrar II — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1179 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.Nos.1179 of 2023

M.Pachai Pillai

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Joint Sub Registrar II, District Registrar Cadre, Thousand Lights, Chennai

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent herein in his proceedings No.Nil dated 14.11.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to register the document presented by the learned XXV Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai - 600 104 without insisting for the production of parent documents within the time limit fixed by the Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan For Respondent : Mr.G.Krishna Raja, Additional Government Pleader

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/8

W.P.No.1179 of 2023

O R D E R

The order passed by the Registering authority returning the document presented by the writ petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original title document is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶19

The petitioner presented a sale deed for registration. However, the petitioner has not presented the original title document for verification at the time of registration. Thus, the respondent has returned the document.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner now states that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the certified copy of the title document enabling the registering authority to verify the correctness of the document presented for registration.

¶21

There is no impediment for the registering authority to proceed with the registration by verifying the certified copy of the title document to be produced by the writ petitioner.

¶22

2/8

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.1179 of 2023

¶25

Rule 55A of the Registration Rules stipulates that “The registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation.”

¶26

Therefore, the registering authority is empowered to ask the presentant of the document, to produce the original document for verification.

¶27

The said Rule 55A was inserted in G.O.Ms.No.129 Commercial Taxes and Registration (J2) Department dated 05.09.2022. Section 22B of the Registration Act was inserted by TN Act 41 of 2022 with effect from 16.08.2022. Therefore, for the purpose of understanding the rule 55A of the Registration Rules, Section 22B of the Registration Act is to be taken into consideration. In otherwords, consequent to insertion of Section 22B in the Registration Act, Rule 55A was inserted in Registration Rules through

¶28

G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 05.09.2022.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/8

¶31

W.P.No.1179 of 2023

¶32

Conjoint reading of section 22B of the Act and 55A of the Rules, explicitly indicates that the power of refusal to register a forged document or other documents to be identified or traced out by asking the presentant to submit the original documents for verification.

¶33

This being the spirit of Rule 55A, the said verification can be done alternatively by the registering authority by verifying the certified copy of the original document and if necessary by verifying its genuinity.

¶34

Rule 55A(ii) denotes that “The registering officer, on being satisfied that the description of the property contained in the document presented for registration conforms with the description of the property found in the previous original deed produced by the presentant as provided under this rule, he shall inscribe the word ‘verified’ on a conspicuous portion of the first page of such title deed and affix his signature with date and thereafter cause scanning of page containing such inscription as a reference document.”

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

4/8

¶37

W.P.No.1179 of 2023

¶38

Therefore, the very object sought to be achieved by Rule 55A has

¶39

been unambiguously amplified in the context of section 22B of the Act

¶40

which was inserted by TN Act 41 of 2022. Therefore, there is no impediment for the registering authority to verify the certified copy of the title document and proceed with the registration in the manner contemplated under the Act and Rules.

¶41

It is unambiguous that Rule 55A of the Registration Rules was inserted consequent to the amendment inserted under section 22B of the Registration Act. Therefore, both the provisions are to be read together for the purpose of forming an opinion whether the document presented by the persentant is a forged document or falling under any one of the clauses contemplated under section 22B of the Act.

¶42

That being the purpose sought to be achieved through Rule 55A, the said principle is running in consonance with the amendment effected under the Act. Thus, Rule 55A cannot be construed as stand alone provision and it should be read in conjunction with section 22B of the Registration Act which alone would give a complete meaning and amplify the spirit of the amendment effected under the Act and Rules.

¶43

5/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.1179 of 2023

¶46

In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ petitioner is at liberty to submit the certified copy of the title document before the respondent who in turn shall verify the genuinity or otherwise and accordingly, proceed with the registration by following the procedures as contemplated. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of (4) four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order .

¶47

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 passed by

¶48

the respondent is hereby quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶49

26.07.2023

¶50

¶51

Index : Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6/8

W.P.No.1179 of 2023

The Joint Sub Registrar II, District Registrar Cadre, Thousand Lights, Chennai

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

7/8

¶59

W.P.No.1179 of 2023

¶60

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

W.P.No.1179 of 2023

26.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

8/8

M.Pachai Pillai v. The Joint Sub Registrar II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Pachai Pillai v. The Joint Sub Registrar II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasturba Gandhi Kanya Gurukulam Vs Government of TamilNadu

P.Rajkumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

N.Sulochana Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Thangarasu Vs The Inspector General of Registration

P.Ramamoorthi Vs The Inspector General of Registration

M.Pachai Pillai Vs The Joint Sub Registrar II