Original parent document not necessary to transfer property, rules Madras High Court

Madras High Court rules Sub-registrars cannot refuse property registration without original documents, emphasizing buyer responsibility and legal provisions.

“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-traceability certificate from the police if the parent document had been lost,” the Madras High Court has held.

A Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel held it would be suffice to submit certified copies of the parent document and that the Sub-registrars could always cross check the genuineness of those copies with the original records available with their office.

The judges pointed out the right to hold property was a constitutional right under Article 300A. Hence, it was a step superior than the fundamental rights because it could not be subjected to restrictions and no one could be deprived of property without a reasonable compensation.

The right to hold property also encompasses the right to deal with the property by way of sale deed, gift deed, release deed and so on. The law relating to transfer of immovable properties was governed by a substantial enactment named ‘The Transfer of Property Act of 1882.’

“The fundamental principle of law relating to transfer of immovable property was caveat emptor (the principle that the buyer, and buyer alone, is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made),” the Division Bench highlighted.

“Therefore, the buyers of immovable properties must be careful in not purchasing properties from persons who do not hold a proper title or those which were under encumbrance,” Justice Subramaniam wrote while authoring the verdict for the Division Bench.

“Even if a person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no provision in the Registration Act of 1908 enabling the Sub-registrar to refuse registration except Sections 22-A and 22-B introduced in 2022 by the State legislature insofar as Tamil Nadu is concerned,” the Bench added.