Allowed

P.Ramamoorthi v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC26 Jul 2023WP/1549/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the refusal to register a settlement deed due to the non-submission of the original title document. The High Court quashed the refusal order, holding that the registering authority can verify a certified copy of the title document under the amended Section 22B and Rule 55A.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing registration is quashed. The petitioner is directed to submit the certified copy of the title document for verification within four weeks.

P.Ramamoorthi Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1549 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.No.1549 of 2023

P.Ramamoorthi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶11

2.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Mettupalayam Sub Registrar Office, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 making Refusal Check Slip RFL / Mettupalayam / 33 / 2022 passed by the 3rd Respondent quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the 3rd respondent to the register the settlement deed dated 17.10.2022 which was presented by the petitioner before the sub Registrar in favour of his son Sri

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.1549 of 2023

¶17

R. Vishnuvardhan in respect of the property comprised in Survey Nos. 163 / 1A2 and 2A of Velliyankadu Village Coimbatore District measuring about 2.73 acres.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ramamoorthi Party in person For Respondent : Mr.G.Krishna Raja Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The order passed by the Registering authority returning the

¶21

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.

¶22

The petitioner presented a settlement deed for registration.

¶23

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

¶24

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner now states that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the certified copy

¶25

2/8

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.1549 of 2023

¶28

of the title document enabling the registering authority to verify the correctness of the document presented for registration.

¶29

There is no impediment for the registering authority to proceed

¶30

with the registration by verifying the certified copy of the title document to be produced by the writ petitioner.

¶31

Rule 55A of the Registration Rules stipulates that “The

¶32

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.”

¶33

Therefore, the registering authority is empowered to ask the

¶34

presentant of the document, to produce the original document for verification.

¶35

The said Rule 55A was inserted in G.O.Ms.No.129 Commercial

¶36

Taxes and Registration (J2) Department dated 05.09.2022. Section 22B of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8

¶37

W.P.No.1549 of 2023

¶38

the Registration Act was inserted by TN Act 41 of 2022 with effect from

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

4/8

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.1549 of 2023

¶46

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

¶47

and thereafter cause scanning of page containing such inscription as a reference document.”

¶48

Therefore, the very object sought to be achieved by Rule 55A has been unambiguously amplified in the context of section 22B of the Act, 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.

¶49

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.

¶50

That being the purpose sought to be achieved through Rule 55A, the said principle is running in consonance with the amendment effected

¶51

5/8

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.1549 of 2023

¶54

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.

¶55

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 .

¶56

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Refusal Check Slip RFL / Mettupalayam / 33 / 2022 by the third respondent is hereby quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶57

26.07.2023

¶58

nl Index : Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶59

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

6/8

W.P.No.1549 of 2023

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶64

2.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

¶65

3.The Sub Registrar, Mettupalayam Sub Registrar Office, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District.

¶66

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

¶67

7/8

¶68

W.P.No.1549 of 2023

¶69

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

W.P.No.1549 of 2023

26.07.2023

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

¶74

8/8

P.Ramamoorthi v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramamoorthi v. The Inspector General of Registration

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

M.Pachai Pillai Vs The Joint Sub Registrar II

M.Pachai Pillai Vs The Joint Sub Registrar II