Apex Court Upholds Madras HC's Judgment Invalidating Sec 55A Of TN Registration Rules Requiring Production Of Original Parent Documents For Registration Of Deed

The Supreme Court has upheld the Madras High Court's Judgment, whereby it held that Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules lacks statutory authority. 

The Court was dealing with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court's order, which had held that the power conferred under Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908, is supervisory in nature and cannot be exercised to override statutory provisions.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, "No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."

Pertinently, on September 27, 2024, the Madras High Court had ruled that Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules has no statutory authority. "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," the Division Bench had held. 

The Court had emphasized that rules framed by the Inspector General (IG) of Registration under Section 69 must align with the Act and cannot impose additional restrictions beyond its scope.

The ruling came in response to an appeal filed by P. Pappu, who challenged the 'refusal check slip' issued by the sub-registrar of Rasipuram, Namakkal district, declining to register a property release document transferring her inherited property to her brother. A Single Judge had earlier upheld the refusal, prompting the appeal.

The Bench had observed that Clause 20 of Rule 162, which mandates refusal of registration in the absence of original title deeds, exceeds the IG of Registration’s authority. It further held that unless there is doubt about the genuineness of copies issued by the registration office itself, insisting on original documents is unnecessary.

Referring to its previous ruling in the Punithavathy case, the Court had reiterated that registrars cannot refuse to register documents merely because parties fail to produce originals, especially when the records are available in government offices. Noting the prevalent challenges in obtaining official certificates, the Bench remarked, “It is common knowledge and an accepted phenomenon today that one cannot secure a certificate from a Government office without the price.”

Setting aside the refusal check slip and the Single Judge’s order, the High Court had directed the sub-registrar to register the document within 15 days.

Cause Title: The Sub-Registrar v. P. Pappu [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2344/2025]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, Advocates Sabarish Subramanian (AOR), Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Danish Saifi

Click here to read/download the Order