Original parent document not necessary to transfer property, rules Madras HC

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated22/10/2024

Sub Registrars cannot refuse to register a property transfer document merely because of non production of either the original parent document of the property or a non traceable certificate from the police if the parent document had been lost.

Sub Registrars Cannot Refuse Registration for Lack of Original Parent Document The Madras High Court has ruled that Sub Registrars cannot deny the registration of a property transfer document simply because the original parent document is not produced.
This also applies to cases where the parent document is lost and no non-traceable certificate from the police is provided. Instead, certified copies of the parent document can be submitted, and the Sub Registrars are empowered to verify the authenticity of these copies using their records.

Property as a Constitutional Right The Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel emphasized that the right to hold property is a constitutional right under Article 300A, and thus, it holds a superior status than fundamental rights. No one can be deprived of property without reasonable compensation.
Right to Deal with Property The right to hold property includes the right to deal with it through sale deeds, gift deeds, or release deeds. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governs such transactions, and the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is central to property transactions.
Sub Registrars’ Limited Power in Refusing Registration The court clarified that, under the Registration Act of 1908, Sub Registrars are not authorized to refuse registration simply because the original parent document is missing.
The exceptions to this are limited to specific cases under Sections 22-A and 22-B (introduced in 2022 in Tamil Nadu), which do not cover the non-production of original documents.

Rule 55-A as a Hindrance The court expressed concern about Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which was introduced to allow Sub Registrars to refuse registration without the original parent document. The court described this rule as "stealthily introduced" and said that it contradicted the provisions of the Act.
Cost and Difficulty of Obtaining Non-Traceable Certificates While Rule 55-A offers the option of submitting a non-traceable certificate if the original document is lost, the court recognized the practical challenges.
Obtaining such certificates is often expensive and involves a cumbersome process. This has led to the exploitation of people by forcing them to pay large sums to obtain such documents, sometimes even from neighboring states.

The judgment was delivered in response to a writ appeal filed by P. Pappu, whose release deed for transferring her rights over ancestral property to her brother was rejected by the Sub Registrar in Namakkal district. Despite submitting a certified copy of the parent document, the registration was refused because the original was not available.

The Bench concluded that when certified copies are available and can be verified by the Sub Registrar’s own office, insisting on a non-traceable certificate is unnecessary and leads to bureaucratic inefficiencies. The court set aside the refusal order and directed the Sub Registrar to register the release deed without further delay.