Madras High Court
Sumathi vs The Sub-Registrar on 20 December, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
2025:MHC:132
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P (MD).No.31284 of 2024
and
W.M.P(M)No.26206 of 2024
Sumathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registration Office,
Mudukulathur,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to to the impugned order vide RFL/Mudukulathur/89/2024, dated
29.11.2024, on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and
consequently to direct the respondent to register the Discharge Receipt, dated
29.11.2024 executed by the Petitioner‘s mortgagee Suryamoorthy in favour of
the Petitioner in respect of the property bearing the current S.No.141/13,
situated at Oruvanenthal revenue group, Pothikulam Village, Kadaladi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateswaran
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Addl. Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/17
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order vide
RFL/Mudukulathur/89/2024, dated 29.11.2024, on the file of the respondent
and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to register the
Discharge Receipt, dated 29.11.2024 executed by the Petitioner‘s mortgagee
Suryamoorthy in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the property bearing the
current S.No.141/13, situated at Oruvanenthal revenue group, Pothikulam
Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
2.Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader takes
notice for the respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken
up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.The petitioner is the owner of the property in S.NO.141/1B
measuring an extent of 0.56.5 Hectate(1 acre and 40 cents) situated at
Oruvanenthal revenue group, Pothikulam Village, Kadaladi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. It is further stated that after selling half portion of
the above said property, remaining property measuring about 71 cents, having
patta, is in possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner. Whileso, the Petitioner
borrowed Rs.25,000/- from one Suryamoorthy, for which, a mortgage deed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/17
respect of 15 cents was executed by the Petitioner’s power of attorney Kannan
and it was registered in Document No.97/2003 on 18.02.2003.On payment of
the loan amount, discharge receipt was executed by the mortgagee on
29.11.2024 and when it was presented for registration, the same was returned
with the aforesaid refusal check slip by the respondent on the ground that the
original mortgage deed was not produced. Hence this Writ Petition is filed for
the above said relief.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.271 of 2024 dated 25.03.2024 held that the first proviso to Rule 55 A
of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 2000 is not at all declared as ultra-vires
by this Court. The provisos to Rule 55 A are intact in Rule Books and
therefore, it is to be complied scrupulously, whenever documents are presented
for registration. Further, the second and third provisos to Rule 55A of the
Registration Rules enumerates procedures to be followed in the event of non-
availability of revenue records to be produced for registration. The presentant
of a document is bound to comply with the conditions stipulated in Rule 55A
for registering a document under the Registration Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/17
5. In the case of Federal Bank v. Sub-Registrar reported in 2023 2
CTC 289, it is held that it is not open to the Inspector General of Registration to
take a contra view and notify a subordinate legislation the effect of which is to
completely render nugatory to the interpretation made by this Court. Ex-facie,
the first proviso to Rule 55-A (i) is clearly illegal and is vitiated by a clear
abuse of power.
6. In the case of N.Ramayee vs. the Sub Registrar, in W.P.No.674
of 2020 dated 05.11.2020, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as
follows:-
“29. In the light of the above when we deal with the
various provisions of the Transfer of Property Act the question
arises as to whether the transfer is restricted to one time in respect
of the immovable property, unless the previous transfer or any
agreement is set aside in the court of law, and other transfer is
permissible? The answer is absolutely “No” for the following
reasons:
The property of any kind may be transferred, except as
otherwise provided by the transfer of property Act or by any other
law for the time being, as provided in Section 6 of the Transfer of
property Act.
30. Every person competent to contract and entitled to
transferable property, or authorised to dispose of transferable
property not his own, is competent to transfer such property either
wholly or in part, and either absolutely or conditionally, in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/17
circumstances, to the extent and in the manner allowed and
prescribed by any law for the time being in force, as per Section 7
of the Transfer of Property Act. The reading of the above section
makes it very clear that even a person not entitled transferable
property is competent to transfer such property when he was
authorised to dispose of such property.
31. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act deals
with the power of the ostensible owner to effect the transfer of the
property with consent, express or implied of the real owner.
32. From the principle underlined in the Section 41 of
the Transfer of Property Act is that the ostensible owner of the
property, with the consent express or implied and representing
himself as owner of the property though he is not having the title,
can deal with the property. Similarly, Section 42 of the T.P. Act
deals with the transfer by a person having authority to revoke the
former transfer. When a person transfers any immovable property
reserving power to revoke the transfer, and subsequently transfers
the property for consideration to another transferee, such transfer
operates in favour of such transferee subject to any condition
attached to the exercise of the power as a revocation of the former
transfer to the extent of the power.
33. Similarly section 43 of Transfer of Property Act
deals with transfer by un-authorised person who subsequently
acquires interest in the property transferred. The above section
makes it very clear that even a person who has no title over the
property purports to transfer to another by deed and when he
subsequently acquires any interest in the property, sufficient to
satisfy the transfer, the title would pass to the transferee without
any further act on the part of the transferor, provided the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/17
transferee has not rescinded the transfer and opts for such
effectuation. The above principle also makes it very clear even a
transfer by un-authorised person is not prohibited. Only the
validity of the title would be subject to his acquiring subsequent
interest in the property.
34. Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act deals
with priority of rights created by transfer, which reads as follows:
“48. Where a person purports to create by
transfer at different times rights in or over the same
immovable property, and such rights cannot all exist or
be exercised to their full extent together, each later
created right shall, in the absence of a special contract or
reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to
the rights previously created.”
35. The above section determines the priority when
there are successive transfers, where the person creates transfer at
different times right in or over the same immovable property, such
rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together,
each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract
or reservation bind the earlier transferee and be subject to the
rights previously created.
36. Reading of the above section makes it clear that
there is no bar for successive transfers. However, the rights in
later transfer shall always be subject to the rights already created
in the earlier transfer.
37. It is also pertinent to note that even if transfer is
made during a pending suit, such transfer is not void but is subject
to the result of the suit. Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act,
deals with fraudulent transfer. Even such fraudulent transfer is
made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor
shall be voidable at the option of any creditor so defeated or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/17
delayed. Even in such cases the rights of transferee in good faith
and for consideration is protected.
38. Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act deals
with marshalling by subsequent purchaser. The above provision
also makes it clear that when the owner of two or more properties
mortgages them to one person and then sells one or more of the
properties to another person, the buyer is in the absence of a
contract to the contrary, entitled to have the mortgage-debt
satisfied out of the property or properties not sold to him, so far as
the same will extend, but not so as to prejudice the rights of the
mortgagee or persons claiming under him or of any other person
who has for consideration acquired an interest in any of the
properties. The above provision also makes it clear that though
there were mortgages already created there is no bar for
subsequent transfer of the property. But subsequent transfer is
subject to the mortgage earlier created.
39. Section 57 of the Transfer of Property Act deals
with the Provision by Court for encumbrances and sale freed there
from. The Section also makes it clear that even the properties
already encumbered can be brought under court sale and the
encumbrance can be freed after issuance of notice to the
encumberer.
40. It is also relevant to note that even a mortgage is a
transfer of an interest in specific immovable property for the
purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be
advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the
performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary
liability. Therefore, it cannot be said that once the encumbrance is
made by creating a mortgage, the mortgagor is totally prohibited
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/17
from effecting any further transfer. In fact if any such transfer is
made, it is always subject to the mortgage alone. If the analogy is
drawn from the judgment of the single judge in W.P. No.33601 of
2019 [Venkattamma v. The Sub-Registrar] that agreement once
registered there cannot be any subsequent settlement deed is
accepted, such situation even may lead to the contention that even
where a simple mortgage is created, the mortgagor cannot
transfer the property for any other purpose even for a lease, even
though lease is just transfer of right to enjoy the property. The
judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 33601 of 2019
[Venkattamma v. The Sub-Registrar] holding that unless there is
declaration declaring the agreement for sale is null and void is
obtained from civil court no further transfer could be registered,
which is, in our view, not according to law. It is also to be noted
that in the above case only agreement for sale was registered. It is
relevant to extract Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.”
14.a. Dealing with the case of transfers made after the execution
of a sale agreement the Division Bench observed:
“Section 54 of T.P. Act: “Sale” defined.— “Sale” is a
transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or
promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how
made.—
3 Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable
property of the value of one hundred rupees and
upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible
thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In
the case of tangible immovable property of a value less
than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made
either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the
property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes
place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as
he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for
sale.—A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a
contract that a sale of such property shall take place on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/17
terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself,
create any interest in or charge on such property.”
41. The contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract
that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled
between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest or
charge on such property. The agreement of sale is merely a
document creating right to obtain a document of sale on fulfilment
of terms and conditions specified therein and it is only capable of
enforcement in the event of breach of contract by the other side.
Even to enforce such agreement for specific performance, the
agreement holder has to establish not only the contract but other
grounds viz., ready and willingness on his part to get a decree of
specific performance provided the suit is filed within time.
42. In Narandas Karsondas v. S.K. Kamtam [(1977) 3
SCC 247 : AIR 1977 SC 774] the Honourable Supreme Court also
considered the nature of the right created on the immovable
property by a contract for sale. It has been stated that contract of
sale in view of section 24 of T.P. Act does not of itself create any
interest in or charge on the property. The personal obligation
created by a contract of sale (as recognised in Section 3 of the
Specific Relief Act and section 91 of the Trust Act is described in
Section 40 of the T.P. Act) as an obligation arising out of contract.
An annexure to the ownership of the property, but not amounting
to interest or easement therein.
43. Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act also protects the
subsequent transferee for value and for consideration in good
faith without notice of the original contract. Even if a person has
no title to the property has entered into a contract for sale, the
transferee can seek for specific performance under section 13 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/17
the Specific Relief Act.
44. From a combined reading of various provisions of
the Transfer of Property Act as referred above, we are of the view
that there is no bar for creating subsequent transfer of the
immovable property. Effect of the subsequent transfer is always
subject to the earlier transfer created by the transferor of the
immovable property. Therefore, it cannot be said that since the
agreement for sale is registered the owner viz., the Vendor has no
right to execute any document. In Venkatamma's case [W.P. No.
33601 of 2019] in fact settlement deed has been presented for
registration by the Vendor after three years of the so called
contract. Merely on the basis of the agreement for sale, the
registrar refused to register the document which is against the
very substantive law of the country. If such approach is accepted a
situation may arise in every loan transaction if some contract is
registered, merely because it shown in the encumbrance as a
registered agreement, the owners of the property would be
prohibited from dealing with the property as long as the
encumbrance finds place in the encumbrance certificate. Such
situation in fact would lead to deprive the right of the owner of the
property to deal with the property which is a constitutional right.”
7. Therefore, the effect of the first proviso is clearly an arbitrary
exercise of power aimed at setting at naught the above declaration of law by the
Division Bench of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/17
8. Unfortunately, it was not brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court and as such, the Hon'ble Division Bench had no
opportunity to deal with the above issue. In view of the above, this Court could
not able to follow the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court since the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court dealt with the issue in the above said manner. It is
also endorsed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Subramani vs. The Sub-Registrar in WP No.11056 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024.
“28. It is also pertinent to note that even if transfer is
made during a pending suit, such transfer is not void but is subject
to the result of the suit. Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act,
deals with fraudulent transfer. Even such fraudulent transfer is
made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor
shall be voidable at the option of any creditor so defeated or
delayed. Even in such cases the rights of transferee in good faith
and for consideration is protected.”
9. This issue has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court recently in WA.No.1160 of 2024 by judgment dated 27.09.2024.
The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“7. The law relating to transfer of immovable property is
governed by the substantial enactment namely, The Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. The right to hold property and the right to be
not deprived of property without reasonable compensation is a
constitutional right ensured under Article 300A of the Constitution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/17
of India. Being a constitutional right, it is one step superior to even
the fundamental rights, as there cannot be a reasonable restriction
on the said right and no one can be deprived of the property without
reasonable compensation. The right to hold the property also takes
in its fold the right to deal with the property. No doubt, the second
proviso to rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules mandates
that the original of the antecedent document should be produced to
enable registration of a subsequent instrument. Of course, a way-out
is provided namely, the production of non traceability certificate
from the police department. 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. An elaborate
procedure has also been fixed for issuance of non traceability
certificate. We have come across several instances where, because
of the high pricing of and the complicated procedure involved in
obtaining a non traceability certificate, instances of people
obtaining non traceability certificate from the neighboring States
has increased.
8. The fundamental principle of law relating to transfer of
immovable property is caveat emptor. A buyer of the property is
required to be careful in not purchasing certain properties which are
already encumbered or from person who does not have title. Even if
a person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no
provision in the Registration Act, 1908, to enable the Registrar to
refuse registration except Section 22-A and Section 22-B, which
have been introduced recently in the year 2022 by the State
Legislature insofar as Tamil Nadu is concerned. Even Section 22-A
and Section 22-B do not authorise refusal of registration on the
ground that the original of the prior's title deed has not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/17
produced. We are unable to resist observing that Rule 55-A has been
stealthily introduced as a subordinate legislation only to enable
Registrars refuse to register instruments indiscriminately. Neither
Section 22-A nor Section 22-B authorise a Registrar to refuse to
register instruments on the grounds specified under Rule 55-A. No
doubt, Mr.Ramanlaal falls back on the power of Superintendence
conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the
District Registrars under Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Section 68 reads as follows:
“68. Power of Registrar to superintend and
control Sub-Registrars.
(1) Every Sub-Registrar shall perform the duties of his office
under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in
whose district the office of such Sub-Registrar is situate.
(2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (whether on
complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this Act
which he considers necessary in respect of any act or
omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him or in
respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book
or the office in which any document has been registered.''
9. The power conferred under Section 68 of the
Registration Act, 1908, is only a supervisory jurisdiction and it
invests the power in the Registrars to issue any order consistent with
the Act. As we already observed, the provision of Section 55-A
inserted in the rules has no statutory authority. Section 69 of the
Registration Act 1908, enables the Inspector General to make rules
providing for the matters that are set out in Clauses (a) to (h). The
provision namely, Section 69 further provides that the rule so framed
shall be consistent with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the
rules made by the Inspector General of Registration exercising the
power under Section 69 cannot override the provisions of the Act.
Rule 162 of the Registration Rules prescribes the circumstances
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13/17
under which a Registrar can refuse to register an instrument. Clause
20 has been added to Rule 162 to enable the Registrar to refuse
registration, if the presentant does not produce the original deed or
record specified in Rule 55A. We do not propose to delve into the
validity or otherwise of the rule, but we must record that prima facie,
the rule overreaches the legislation and it is beyond the powers of
the Inspector General of Registration under Section 69.
10. Adverting to the facts on hand, the document that is
sought to be registered is a release deed executed by the sister in
favour of the brother. The document recites that the property
belonged to the father. The parties are not strangers to each other.
They have produced registration copies of the antecedent documents
which are registered in the very same office. Unless the Registrar
has a doubt regarding the genuineness of the copies issued by his
own office, insistence on production of originals is a superfluous
exercise. As we had already stated, it is a common knowledge and
accepted phenomena today that one cannot secure a certificate from
a Government office without the price. In such situation, driving
executant of documents to obtain a non traceability certificate in
case of lost document in every case, will result only in encouraging
under hand dealings. When certified copies have 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 traceability certificate appears to be rather a wasteful exercise.
Even in Punithavathy's case referred to supra, we have observed
that the Registrars will not refuse registration particularly, when the
parties to the documents are relatives and they take the risk of
obtaining the document without examining the title. The copies of the
documents have already been produced. The Sub Registrar could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14/17
have verified the same with the original records in his office and
register the instrument without dogmatically refusing registration.
We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of
Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General. We, therefore,
set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the
impugned check slip. We direct the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, to
register the release deed. We permit the appellant to re-present the
release deed within four weeks from today and upon such re-
presentation, the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, will register the
instrument without insisting on production of originals within 15
days from the date of presentation.”
10. In view of the above, the respondent cannot insist the party to
produce the original parent document while registration. Therefore, the
impugned refusal check slip cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 29.11.2024 is hereby
quashed. The petitioner is directed to re-present the Discharge Receipt within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt
of the same, the respondent is directed to register the Discharge receipt
presented by the petitioner without insisting upon production of the parent deed
in respect of the subject property within a period of one week thereafter and
release the same forthwith, if it is otherwise in order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15/17
11.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.12.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
vsn
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registration Office,
Mudukulathur,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16/17
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vsn
ORDER MADE IN
W.P (MD).No.31284 of 2024
and
W.M.P(M)No.26206 of 2024
20.12.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17/17