The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Madurai News : “Officials cannot refuse to register attached properties”

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jun 26, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Madurai

“Officials cannot refuse to register attached properties”

Staff Reporter

They cannot even withhold the sale deeds, says High Court Judge

MADURAI: The Registration Department can neither refuse to register a sale deed nor withhold the document on the ground that the immovable property concerned was under attachment, the Madras High Court has ruled. Partly allowing a writ petition filed in the Madurai Bench, Justice M. Sathyanarayanan held that the Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not empower the sub-registrars to hold back the sale deeds of attached properties.

Rule 162 states that registration of a document could be refused if it was written in a language which the registering officer does not understand and which was not commonly used in the district unless it was accompanied by a true translation.

Further, it could be refused if the document contained unattested interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Insufficient description of the property, failure to file related papers or absence of the date of execution could be the other reasons.

The Rule also stipulates reasons such as not presenting the document within a prescribed time, doubts raised over the identity of the executor and denial of execution by a person who claims to be the executing party.

The sub-registrars could also decline to register if the person supposed to have executed the document was a “minor, idiot or a lunatic.” Absence of proof to show that the executor had died and non-payment of prescribed fee could also be the reasons.

Prior attachment of property was not listed as one of the reasons for denying registration under the Registration Rules or the Act. Therefore, in the absence of any legal sanction, the officials could not withhold the document, the judge said.

In the instant case, the petitioner hailing from Madurai had purchased a property from a person whose father was accused of misappropriating public funds during his tenure as president of a cooperative society.

The sale deed was registered on February 21, 2006. But the Tirupparankundram sub-registrar refused to release the document stating that the property had been attached by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies on January 31, 2004.

Mr. Justice Sathyanarayanan quashed the sub-registrar’s order and directed him to hand over the sale deed to the petitioner.

However, he desisted from setting aside the attachment order and asked the petitioner to challenge it in a manner known to law.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu