Madras High Court

A.K.K.Kannan vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 12 September, 2025

Author: Krishnan Ramasamy

Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy

                                                                                       WP No. 34509 of 2025




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 12-09-2025

                                                         CORAM

                        THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                               WP No. 34509 of 2025

                A.K.K.Kannan,
                S/o.Krishnamoorthi,
                No.7/1, Salur Village, A.Pallipatti Post,
                Pappireddipatti Taluk,
                Dharmapuri District.

                                                                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs

                1.The Inspector General of Registration,
                Registration Department,
                Government Of Tamil Nadu, Santhome,
                Chennai-04.

                2.The Sub- Registrar,
                Pappireddipatti Sub- Registration Office,
                Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District.

                                                                                       Respondent(s)



                PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

                praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )
                                                                                              WP No. 34509 of 2025



                records of the impugned refusal memo dated 02.09.2025 in Refusal No. RFL/

                Pappireddipatti/ 9/ 2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same,

                consequently direct the              2nd respondent to register the sale deed of the

                petitioner dated 25.08.2025 for its registration.



                                  For Petitioner(s):          Mr.M.R. Jothimanian

                                  For Respondent(s):          Mr.U.Baranidharan,
                                                              Special Government Pleader


                                                                ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the

records of the impugned refusal memo dated 02.09.2025 in Refusal No. RFL/

nd Pappireddipatti/ 9/ 2025 passed by the 2 respondent and quash the same,

nd consequently direct the 2 respondent to register the sale deed of the petitioner

dated 25.08.2025 for its registration.

2.Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice

on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is

taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

presented a sale deed for the purpose of registration before the respondents.

However, the 2nd respondent refused to register the same by virtue of the

impugned refusal memo dated 02.09.2025, on the ground that the 3rd party one

Ponmalai Senthil made an objection stating that there was an unregistered sale

agreement executed between the petitioner and the said Ponmalai Senthil for the

very same property. Since no sale was executed by the petitioner, a criminal

complaint was also registered against the petitioner before the Pappireddipatti

Police. He would further submit that no such agreement was entered between

the petitioner and one Ponmalai Senthil. The petitioner has only received a hand

loan of Rs.20,000/- from him and there is no idea ti sell the property to the said

Ponmalai Senthil.

4.Learned Special Government pleader appearing for the respondents

would submit that since there was an objection from the 3rd party, the

respondents could not register the sale deed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the

materials available on records.

6.Taking note of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the

issue in the present case has already been well settled by this Court in

W.P.No.11056 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024.

7.For better appreciation, it would be opposite to extract the relevant

portion of the aforesaid order, which reads as follows:-

“8. It is relevant to note that the powers of the Sub

Registrar is governed by the provisions of the Registration

Act. Therefore, he has to perform the duty strictly in terms of

the power conferred by the Registration Act.

9. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules set out various

circumstances under which the Registrar may refuse to

register the document. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules

reads as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

"162. When registration is refused the reasons for refusal

shall be at once recorded in Book 2. They will usually come

under one or more of the heads mentioned below---

I. Section 19.---That the document is written in a language

which the Registering Officer does not understand and

which is not commonly used in the District, and that it is

unaccompanied by a true translation and a true copy.

II. Section 20.---That it contains unattested interlineations,

blanks, erasures or alterations which in the opinion of the

Registering Officer require to be attested.

III. Section 21.---(1) to (3) and Section 22.-- That the

description of the property is insufficient to identify it or

does not contain the information required by Rule 18.

IV. Section 21(4).---That the document is unaccompanied by

a copy or copies of any map or plan which it contains.

V. Rule 32.---That the date of execution is not stated in the

document or that the correct date is not ascertainable.

VI. Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 72, 75 and 77.---That it is

presented after the prescribed time.

VII. Sections 32, 33, 40 and 43.---That it is presented by a

person who has no right to present it

VIII. Section 34.---That the executing parties or their

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

representatives, assigns, or agents have failed to appear

within the prescribed time.

IX. Sections 34 and 43.---That the Registering Officer is not

satisfied as to the identity of a person appearing before him

who alleges that he has executed the document.

X. Sections 34 and 40.---That the Registering Officer is not

satisfied as to the right of a person appearing as a

representative, assign, or agent so to appear.

XI. Section 35.---That execution is denied by any person

purporting to be an executing party or by his agent.

Note:-When a Registering Officer is satisfied that an

executant is purposely keeping out of the day with a view to

evade registration of a document or has gone to a distant

place and is not likely to return to admit execution within the

prescribed time, registration may be refused the

nonappearance being treated as tantamount to denial of

execution.

XII. Section 35.---That the person purporting to have

executed the document is a minor, an idiot or a lunatic.

Note:-When the executant of a document who is examined

under a commission under Section 38 of the Act is reported

by the Commissioner to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic

registration may be refused and it is not necessary that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

Registering Officer should personally examine the executant

to satisfy himself as to the existence of the disqualification.

XIII. Section 35.---That execution is denied by the

representative or assign of a deceased person by whom the

document purports to have been executed. Note:-When some

of the representatives of a deceased executant admit and

others deny execution, the registration of the document shall

be refused in toto, the persons interested being left to apply

to the Registrar for an enquiry into the fact of execution.

XIV. Sections 35 and 41.---That the alleged death of a

person by whom the document purports to have been

executed has not been proved.

XV. Section 41.---That the Registering Officer is not

satisfied as to the fact of execution in the case of a will or of

an authority to adopt presented after the death of the testator

or donor.

XVI. Sections 25, 34 and 80.---That prescribed fee or fine

has not been paid.

XVII. Section 230(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43

of 1961).--That the prescribed certificates from the Income

Tax Officer has not been produced.

XVIII. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms

(Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961 (Act 58 of 1961).---

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

That the declaration has not been filed by the transfer.

XIX. Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act, 1978 (Act 24 of 1978).---That the statement

has not been filed by the transferror and transferee.”

10. Upto Sub-Rule XVII of Rule 162 of the

Registration Rules are traceable to substantive provisions in

the Registration Act, the remaining XVII, XVIII & XIX

traceable to other laws like Income Tax Act, Tamil Nadu

Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961 &

Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.

11. Rule XX has been incorporation in view of the

Rule 55A of the Registration Rules. This Court in the case of

Federal Bank v. SubRegistrar reported in 2023 2 CTC 289

has held that Sub-Rule XX of Rule 162 as unenforceable as

it is without any statutory backing. Other than the Rule 162,

Sections 22-A & 22-B of the Registration Act authorises the

refusal of the document. Section 22-A authorises the refusal

in three types of cases.

12. Now, the refusal slips have been invariably issued

on the basis that a) failure to produce chitta, adangal, FMB

sketch, patta, b) title has been disputed by third party, c)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

absence of parent document, d) letters from the Police, e)

existence of mortgage deed, f) undervaluation, g) not

obtaining the No Objection Certificate from the Lessee and

sometimes, refusal is also made on the ground that Court

Decree presented outside the timelimit prescribed under

Section 23 of the Registration Act. There are instances where

the refusal slip are issued on the basis of attachment made by

the Commercial Taxes Department particularly when the

Sale Certificate is sought to be registered.

13. These refusal slips have been issued based on the

circular issued by the authorities either under Section 68(2)

or Section 69 of the Registration Act. It is relevant to note

that Sections 68 and 69 confers power upon the Registrar of

superintendence and control all the acts of the Sub-Registar.

Sub-Section 2 of Section 68 empowers the Registrar to issue

any order consistent with the Act, which he considers

necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-

Registrar subordinate to him. Similarly, the Registrar shall

also have power to issue any order consistent with the Act in

respect of any act or omission of any 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. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

above power empowering the Registar to issue any order is a

power of superitendence and supervision. Therefore, relying

upon Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 and issuing

such circular cannot be valid in the eye of law. Similarly,

Section 69 deals with the power of Inspector General to

superintend registration offices and make rules. Therefore,

this Court is of the view that the circular cannot override the

statutory provisions of law. The Division Bench of this Court

in the case of N. Ramayee v Sub-Registrar, reported in

(2020) 6 CTC 697 has elaborately dealt the powers of the

Registrar. The Division Bench was constituted on a

reference. This Court has elaborately discussed with the

various power of the Registrar in refusing the document and

held that except the powers conferred to the Registrar under

Rule 162 of the Registration Rules, they cannot cancel the

document. The judgment is also confirmed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) 4844 of 2021.

14. Now, this Court once again deals with the powers

of the Registrar while entertaining the document. It is

relevant to note that in a judgment reported in the case of

Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham, reported

in (2022) 8 SCC 210, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

that the registration of a document comprises of three

essential steps (a) execution of the document (b) presentation

of the document for registration and (c) the act of

registration. Where a challenge is laid to the execution and

the presentation, the remedy is only before the competent

civil court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 54 has

held as follows:

“54. In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or without

the relief of declaration that the registered document is null

and void, what gets challenged, is a combination of all the

aforesaid three steps in the process of execution and

registration. The first of the aforesaid three steps may be

challenged in a suit for declaration that the registered

document is null and void, either on the ground that the

executant did not have a valid title to pass on or on the

ground that what was found in the document was not the

signature of the executant or on the ground that the signature

of the executant was obtained by fraud, coercion, etc. The

second step of presentation of the document and admitting

the execution of the same, may also be challenged on the

very same grounds hereinabove stated. Such objections to

the first and second of the aforesaid three steps are

substantial and t hey strike at the very root of creation of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

document. A challenge to the very execution of a document,

is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on

the execution, is congenital in nature. Therefore, such a

challenge, by its very nature, has to be made only before the

civil court and certainly not before the writ court.”

15. As far as the act of the registration is concerned,

while exercising the power under Sections 34 & 35 of the

Act, the law has been now well settled that the Sub Registrar

before and while registering the document is not deciding

any lis between parties. The function of the Sub Registrar

under Sections 34 & 35 of the Registration Act is only

executive and not quasi judicial in character. The Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Park View Enterprises v

Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1990 Mad 251

has held as follows:

“79. The next contention is that the Sub-’ Registrar is a,

quasi-judicial authority and therefore, no instruction could

be issued to him pertaining to his powers of registering a

document under Part VI of the Registration Act. This act of

the Sub-Registrar is only an executive work. He does not

decide a ‘lis’ between the executants. As will be shown

hereunder, he has got limited functions to discharge.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

Sections 34 and 35 pertain to what he can do, relating to;

registration of a document. If every aspect pertaining to

registration is duly complied with by the executants of

documents; on proper presentation; his only act is to affix

the seal and carry out the registration procedure. He does not

pass a considered order.”

The above judgment is approved by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of

M.P., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, wherein, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as follows:

“Section 35 of the Act does not confer a quasi-judicial power

on the Registering Authority. The Registering Officer is

expected to reassure that the document to be registered is

accompanied by supporting documents. He is not expected

to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document as such.

The examination to be done by him is incidental, to ascertain

that there is no violation of provisions of the 1908 Act. In

Park View Enterprises [Park View Enterprises v. State of

T.N., AIR 1990 Mad 251 : 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 273] it

has been observed that the function of the Registering

Officer is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. He

cannot decide as to whether a document presented for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

registration is executed by person having title, as mentioned

in the instrument. We agree with that exposition.”

16. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, it is clear that the Sub-Registrar while

performing his duties under Sections 34 & 35 of the

Registration Act is not discharging any quasi-judicial

functions. Therefore, the Sub Registrar while performing the

statutory function to register documents has no power of

adjudication as he merely performs an executive act.

17. Though the Registration Act also give certain

powers to the SubRegistrar to refuse certain document, such

refusal is permissible only when the document comes within

the ambit of Rule 162 of the Registration Rules. As already

indicated above, Rule 55-A is also held as unenforceable

since it is without any statutory backing [Federal Bank v.

Sub-Registrar reported in 2023 2 CTC 289]

18. Similarly, Rule 162 also permits refusal on certain

grounds when the document evidences bonded labour or

embodies a transaction constituting an offence under law etc.

Therefore, only those category of documents, the Sub

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

Registrar has power to refuse the document. It is also

relevant to note that Section 22-A was introduced vide T.N

Amendment Act 2 of 2009 with effect from 20.10.2016 and

22-B was introduced vide T.N Second Amendment Act 41 of

2022 with effect from 16.08.2022.

19. Section 22-A authorizes the refusal in three types

of cases. (i) where the land belongs to the State Government

or local authorities (ii) belongs to any endowment covered

by the T.N Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,

1959 (iii) land which is donated for BhoodanYagna vested in

the Tamil Nadu State Bhoodhan Yagna Board (iv) or is a

property belonging to a Waqf which is under the

superintendence of the Waqf Board under the Waqf Act,

1995. Without any prior sanction issued by the competent

authority provided under the Religious Act or by any

authority authorised by the State Government for this

purpose, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse the registration.

The second category under Section 22-A (2) relates to the

transfer of ownership of lands converted to house sites

without permission for the development of such land by the

planning authority. In such cases, the only exception is

where it is shown that the same house site is previously

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

registered as a house site, in which case there is no bar for

registration. The third category under Section 22-A (3) is

where the Registrar can refuse to register a unilateral

cancellation of a sale deed.

20. It is relevant to note that many registration has

been refused citing Section 22-A on the only ground that

some requests are made by Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments Board or the Waqf Board. It is relevant to note

that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha

Ravikumar v The Special Commissioner reported in AIR

2017 Mad 203, wherein, it is held as follows: “the

registering authority is not bestowed with any quasijudicial

function to hold a roving enquiry in respect of the title to the

property. But he has to hold a summary enquiry for the

limited purpose of satisfying himself that the document

deserves to be registered. Such enquiry is neither judicial nor

quasi-judicial.”

21. Similarly, this Court in the case of D. Kalaiyarasan

v Inspector General reported in (2018 SCC Online Mad

7224), it was held that unless and until the authority has

clinching materials to show that the property belonged to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

religious institution, the registration cannot be refused. Also,

this Court in the case of G. Rajasulochana v Inspector

General made in W.P 29706 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024, it

was observed as under: “If there is a serious dispute on the

title to the land, such questions cannot be decided by the

Registrar at the stage of registering a document since he is

only conducting a limited summary enquiry.”

22. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely on

the basis of some letters without production of title deed

clinchingly establish the title of the Waqf Board and

religious institutions mere citing some objections in the form

of letters, document cannot be refused to be registered.

23. Similarly, this Court has also come across various

instances of refusal of documents citing that road has been

formed in the particular survey number, therefore, it should

be treated as house sites, even though the agricultural land is

sought to be transferred. This Court is of the view that

merely because some portion of the land in particular survey

number sold as house sites earlier, when the remaining land

remained as an agricultural land and no layout has been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

formed in the survey number with the approval of the

competent authorities, merely because some portion of the

land is sold earlier as house sites, there is no bar for

registering agricultural lands.

24.As far as the unilateral cancellation of the

settlement is concerned, the law is well settled that unilateral

cancellation of gift deed or sale deed cannot be valid in the

eye of law. Full Benchs of this Court in the case of Sasikala

vs. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector and

another made in W.P.(MD).Nos.6889 of 2020 etc., batch

cases dated 02.09.2022 and also in the case of Latif Estates v

Hadeeja Ammal reported in (2011) 2 Mad LJ 569 held that

unilateral cancellation of settlement or sale deed not

permissible.

25. As far as Section 22-B is concerned, the same

gives power to the registering authorities to refuse the

registration when the document is (a) a forged document (b)

a document relating to a transaction prohibited by a Central

or State Act or (c) where a document relates to the transfer of

immovable property which is attached provisionally or

permanently by a competent authority under a State or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

Central Act. The scope of enquiry as regards a ground under

Section 22-B has been fully considered in the case of G.

Rajasulochana vs Inspector General made in W.P 29706 of

2024 dated 16.04.2024. Only the documents falling within

the ambit of forged document namely false document within

the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code,

registration of such document can be refused not evey

fraudulent transaction. There is no difficulty in respect of 2

nd category of document under Section 22-B of the

Registration Act. When any transaction which is prohibited

by Central or State Acts, there is no difficulty in refusing to

transaction. The difficulty arises only with regard to the 3rd

category.

26. It is relevant to note that there are some instances

noticed by this Court where the attachment in a money suit

relating to the year 1998 for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. When the

document was presented in the year 2004, the same has been

refused mainly on the ground that attachment has not raised.

It is relevant to note that Section 64 of CPC makes it clear

that any private alienation after attachment is void as against

all claims enforceable under the attachment. The Hon'ble

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

Supreme Court in the case of M. Marathachalam Pillai v.

Padmavathi Ammal reported in (1971) 3 SCC 878 has held

that the sale is only void against all other claims enforceable

under the attachment and it is not void generally. Therefore,

this Court is of the view that merely on the basis of some

attachment reflected in the encumbrance, it is the duty of the

registering authorities to make summary enquiry as to the

nature of the claims under the attachment. For example, if

the attachment is for a sum of few lakhs of rupees over

several crores of properties, it cannot be said that owner of

the property cannot deal with the property forever. If such

interpretation is given, in fact, it will take away the

constitutional right of a person to hold the property. If the

attachment is for a fewer amount and the value of the

property is more, the document can be registered with the

entry that the attachment prevail over against all the claims

enforceable under the attachment so that subsequent

purchaser will be put on notice.

27. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the

case of K. Balachandran v A.M MuthyyanMudaliar reported

in (1974) 87 LW 812, held as follows: “It is abundantly clear

that neither S. 64 of the Code nor the corresponding

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

provision in the earlier enactments made private alienation

void for all purposes. S. 64 specifically says that the

transaction is void only as against all claims enforceable

under the attachment. As pointed out in the first of the cases

quoted above a private alienation when an attachment is in

force is, not void against the whole world.”

28. This Court has also come across many cases where

the attachment would have been reflected in the entry,

subsequently, the suit get compromised or settled out of

court, however, by inadvertence or omission, the attachment

would not have been raised. Such case, if any material has

been produced to show that attachment is already raised or

the entire suit has been settled between the parties, that also

can be taken note of by the registering authorities while

registering the document.

29. Now, it has become a routine practice of the Sub

Registrar to refuse the registration citing ground that are

outside the purview of the Registration Act. Despite such

judicial pronouncement, refusal of registration is made citing

internal circular of the department under the pretext that

judgment of this Court are confined to the facts of the case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

It is relevant to note that it is not open to the registering

authorities to interpret the judgment and decide whether the

facts applies to the particular case or not. Such interpretation

could be made only by the Courts and not the Sub-Registrar.

A recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v The State of

Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 327, has held as

follows:

“The Court has the function of authoritatively construing

legislation, that is, determining its legal meaning so far as is

necessary to decide a case before it. This function is

exclusive to the Court, and a meaning found by any other

person, for example, an authorising agency, an

investigatingagency, an executing agency, a prosecuting

agency, or eventhe legislature itself, except when intending

to declare or amend the law, is always subject to the

determination of the court.”

Therefore, mere circulars or other administrative

instructions of the Inspector General of Registration

interpreting the provisions of law cannot be sustained in the

eye of law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

KeshavjiRavji& Co. v. CIT, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 231

has held as follows:

“The task of interpretation of the laws is the exclusive

domain of the courts.”

Therefore, the authorities under the Registration Act

cannot issue self-styled rules which run counter to the

substantive provisions of law and the principles settled by

the Courts in interpreting the provisions of the Registration

Act.

31. Now, this Court has to point out setttled position

of law in various aspects. With regard to the refusal slips

issued on the ground of

a. failure to produce chitta, adangal, FMB sketch,

patta is concerned, this Court in the case of The Trust for

Education and Rehabilitation of Disabled Orphans and

Destitutes represented by its Managing Trustee v. The

Inspector General of Registration, Chennai reported in 2002

(1) MLJ 244 has held that Sub-Registrar cannot refuse

registration on the ground that the document is not

accompanied by a Chitta, Adangal or FMB sketch etc.

Similarly, in the case of Jesupalam vs Registrar reported in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

2015 SCC Online Mad 7660, it was held that the Sub-

Registrar cannot refuse registration on the ground that the

document is not accompanied by a Chitta, Adangal or FMB

sketch etc. Therefore, when the Constitutional Courts

interpreted the provisions of the Registration Act and laid a

law, wherein, the Inspector General of Registration is also a

party, issuing the circular contrary to the above judgment to

produce patta, chitta, adangal cannot be sustained in the eye

of law.

b. refusal on the ground of title dispute, in a judgment

of this Court in the case of Abdullasa v Inspector General of

Registration reported in 2021 2 CWC 451, this Court held

that the Registrar cannot refuse to register the document on

the basis of objections raised by a rival claimant, who has a

different source of title. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., reported in

(2016) 10 SCC 767 has held that an enquiry into the title of

the executant is beyond the powers of the Sub-Registrar.

Therefore, in view of the law declared in this regard, merely

on the ground of protest petitions and objections raised by

some third party, the document cannot be refused to be

registered.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

c. With regard to the refusal on the absence of parent

document, this Court in the case of K.S. Vijayendran v. The

Inspector General of Registration reported in (2011) 2 LW

648, Lakshmi Ammal v. The Sub Registrar, Villivakkam

reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 5868 and C. Moorthy v.

Sub Registrar Aruppukottai reported in 2018 SCC OnLine

Mad 3898, it was held that absence of a parent document is

no ground to refuse registration. Pursuant to these

judgments, sub-rule XX was introduced in Rule 162

authorizing the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration for non-

production of the original title deed as required by Rule 55-

A. This Court in the case of Federal Bank v Sub-Registrar,

reported in 2023 2 CTC 289 has held that Sub-Rule XX of

Rule 162 has no statutory backing. The said order has been

followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.

Ariyanatchi v Inspector General made in W.A.(MD).No. 856

of 2023, dated 27.06.2023, wherein, Division Bench of this

Court has held that, for instance, the original document is

held by one co-owner, the Sub-Registrar can always take an

undertaking or a declaration in the form of an affidavit from

the vendors to the effect that the original document is with

the said person and register the document. Hence, the Sub-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

Registrar cannot refuse to register a document merely

because the original parent deed has not been produced.

Considering the above settled position of law, the Registrar

cannot refuse to register the document merely on the ground

of non production of parent document.

d. As far as the refusal based on the letters from the

police is concerned, this Court in the case of R. Madhupriya

v Inspector General of Registration reported in 2020 SCC

Online Mad 20112 has held that the practice of police

officers issuing letters to the Sub-Registrar’s asking them to

refrain from registering documents has been consistently

deprecated. In such cases, it is for the aggrieved party to

obtain appropriate orders from the civil court instead of

using the police machinery to prevent the Registrar from

performing his statutory functions. Such view of the matter,

merely on the basis of some communication from the police

officials, the Registrar has no power to refuse the

registration.

e. As far as the refusal based on the existence of

mortgage, it is now settled that once the encumbrance is

made by creating a mortgage, the mortgagor is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

prohibited from effecting any further transfer. Section 56 of

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the marshalling by

subsequent purchaser. The Division Bench of this Court in

the case of N. Ramayee v Sub-Registrar, reported in (2020) 6

CTC 697, in paragraphs 29 & 30 has held as follows:

“29. 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.

30. Section 57 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the

Provision by Court for encumbrances and sale freed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

therefrom. 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.”

That apart, the first proviso to Rule 55-A of the T.N

Registration Rules, 2000 had inserted which authorises the

registrar to refuse the document until the limitation period

for redeeming the mortgage has expired. This Court in the

case of Federal Bank v Sub-Registrar, reported in 2023 2

CTC 289, has already declared the first proviso to Section

55-A as ultravires the powers under the Act, as it runs

counter to the substantive provisions of law viz., Sections 48

and 56 of the Transfer of Property Act. When the Rule under

the Registration Act cannot override the statutory provisions

of the Transfer of Property, it is not open to the SubRegistrar

to refuse registration citing the existence of a mortgage or

lease since the Transfer of Property, which is the substantive

law permits such transfer despite the earlier mortgage is

created and lease is executed.

In N.Ramayee's case (cited supra), the Division Bench

of this Court, in paragraph 30 has held as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

30. Section 57 of the Transfer of Property Act deals

with the Provision by Court for encumbrances and sale freed

therefrom. 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.

Therefore, any Rule inserted to undo the law declared

by this Court without any statutory backing cannot be

sustained in the eye of law.

f. Now, there are instances that Sub-Registrar is

simply refusing to register the document on the ground that

the property has been undervalued. It is relevant to note that

when the document is not valued properly, in N.Ramayee's

case (cited supra), in paragraph 19 has held as follows:

“19. It is also relevant to note that even when the

document is undervalued and the Registrar registering the

document has reason to believe that the market value of the

property has not been truly set out in the document, he has to

receive the document and refer the same to the Collector for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

determination of the market value of such property and the

proper duty payable thereon as per Section 47-A of the

Stamp Act. Even on such ground also the Registrar has no

right to refuse to register the document.”

Therefore, the refusal of registration on the ground of

undervaluation cannot be valid in the eye of law.

g. Similarly, No objection sought to be obtained when

the lease is in existence in respect of the immovable

properties. The said issue is also elaborately dealt by the

Division Bench of this Court in N.Ramayee's case, wherein,

in paragraph 38, it is held as follows:

“38. It is also brought to our notice about the new circular in

No. 24011/C1/2020 dated 08.10.2020. It is the contention of

the learned Additional Advocate General that the Registrar

has power to regulate the registration in order to prevent

fraud and hence, the Registrar is having powers under the

Registration Act to regulate the registration and the right to

refuse the document and that such power is available under

Section 71 of the Registration Act. Such contention is not

acceptable for the simple reason that the circular bars

transfer of property on the ground that when a lease is

already executed in respect of the property, without expiry of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

the lease, transfer cannot be permitted or without consent of

lessee no registration is permissible. Further, insisting a no

objection from mortgagee before registration is also against

the very substantive provision of law. If any property is sold

with existing mortgage, the transferee steps into the shoes of

mortgagor. He has the right to redeem the property by

paying the mortgage money. Therefore in the name of

regulating the registration, any circular which is in the nature

of violating the substantive provision of law, which deals

with the transfer of property, then such circular cannot stand

in the eye of law. If the contention of learned Advocate

General that without seeking declaration and cancellation of

the agreement of sale, subsequent agreement or transaction

cannot be registered, is accepted then such restriction, in

fact, infringes the very Constitutional right of the citizen

provided under Article 300 A of the Constitution.”

Therefore, requiring no objection is not at all

warranted for registering the document with existing lease.

h. As far as the refusal of registration of Court decrees

outside the time limit presentation under Section 23 is

concerned, this Court in the case of Sathiyamoorthy v Sub-

Registrar reported in (2023) 4 CTC 287 condemned the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

practice of the Sub-Registrar in citing the provisions of

Section 23 of the Registration Act holding that a circular in

Na.Ka. No.34930/C1/2019, dated 27.2.2023, was eventually

brought out in light of this decision holding that the time

limit under Section 23 would not apply to a Court decree.

Therefore, the refusal on the ground of delay in respect of

registering Court decree cannot be sustained in the eye of

law.

i. With regard to the attachment made by some

department when the sale certificate issued under

SARFAESI Act, 2002 is concerned, it is well settled that a

Full Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant

Commissioner (CT) v. I. O. B. reported in (Mad)[FB], 2017

1 MLJ 769 and two Division Benches in the case of Tamil

Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited v. The Joint-I Sub Registrar

Office, Madurai reported in [2021] 1 WLR 462 (DB) and

State Bank of India v Sub Registrar, reported in 2023 SCC

Online Mad 3179 (DB), have already held that the auction

purchaser would get the property free from all encumbrances

which includes the claim of any statutory authority like the

Commercial Taxes Department. Such view of the matter,

when the sale certificate sought to be registered, any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

attachment existing will have no significance. On that

ground also, the document cannot be refused to be

registered.

j. The other ground on which refusal is also made

casually is citing the pendency of the suit. The said issue is

also elaborately dealt by the Division Bench of this Court in

N.Ramayee's case, wherein, in paragraph 28, it is held as

follows:

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.”

Therefore, mere citing the pendency of the suit also

the document cannot be registered”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:04:30 pm )

8.In such view of the matter, the refusal memo issued by the 2nd

respondent dated 02.09.2025 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to

register the sale deed dated 25.08.2025 within a period of two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.