P.PAPPU Vs. SUB REGISTAR, RASIPURAM SRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition challenging the Refusal Check Slip issued by the Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram, dtd. 30/11/2023, the Petitioner/Appellant had moved this Court in W.P. No.242 of 2024. The Refusal Check Slip was issued on the ground that the Petitioner has not produced the original of the antecedent Title Deeds. The Petitioner/ Appellant had sought to register a Release Deed, dtd. 30/11/2023 in and by which, she sought to relinquish her rights over certain immovable properties in favour a brother. It is not in dispute that those properties belonged to the family and were allotted to the father of the Executant/Petitioner under the Partition Deed, dtd. 4/10/1960 and the Sale Deed, dtd. 18/1/1966. The Revenue records that stood in the name of the father were also produced. The Sub-Registrar, however, relied upon the Second Proviso to Rule 55-A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, refused to register the document and issued the impugned Check Slip. The Petitioner, however, produced Certified copies of those documents which were also issued by the very same office namely, Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram. Since the prayer of the Petitioner was rejected by the Writ Court, the Petitioner has come up with this Appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. N. Manokaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. R. Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent.

(3.) Mr. Manokaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would vehemently contend that Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules itself is against the provisions of the parent Act namely, the Registration Act, 1908. He would submit that it runs Counter to various provisions of the substantive law relating to transfer of immovable property namely, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. If a State legislature intends to enact the law which will be inconsistent with the Central enactment in respect of matters enumerated in List III of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, Article 245 of the Constitution of India requires that the State law should be reserved for the assent of the President and upon such assent being granted after the President is apprised of the inconsistency, the State law would prevail in that State. He would point out by placing Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules in the Subordinate legislation that the State has circumvented the provisions of Article 245 of the Constitution of India. He would, therefore, submit that the very rule which lays down several conditions for registration of instruments of transfer of immovable property being inconsistent with the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it cannot be invoked by the Sub-Registrar indiscriminately to deny registration of instruments.