9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the documents or transaction permitted under law. Though the rule 55(A) has not been directly challenged this Court is of the view that when a subordinate Legislation is ex facie found to be in conflict with the provision of the Parent Act and Transfer of Property act as well as constitutional rights, the sub ordinate legislation will have to yield to substantive law governing the field and constitution as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Government of Andra Pradesh vs Lakhsmi Devi [ 2008 (2) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein it is held that The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and no law which is in conflict with it can survive. Since the law made by the legislature is in the second layer of the hierarchy, obviously it will be invalid if it is in conflict with a provision in the Constitution (except the directive principles which, by Article 37, have been expressly made non-enforceable). Prior to the insertion of Rule 55-A the Registrar could refuse to register a document if it fell within any of the categories in Section 22-A B of the Act or under Section 34 or if the case fell within any of the circumstances set out in Rule 162 of the Registration Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right to deal with his property and would clearly infringe Article 300-A of the Constitution. It does not bear repetition that Article 300-A has now been recognised as a human right. It is also well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, [ 2007 (11) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT ] that a subordinate legislation may be struck down as arbitrary or contrary to statute if it fails to take into account vital facts which expressly or by necessary implication are required to be taken into account by the statute or the Constitution. Furthermore, Rule 55-A is a delegated legislation which cannot go beyond the scope of the Parent Act viz., the Registration Act as well the Transfer of Property Act which is the substantive law governing the transfer of immovable properties. Hence, the first proviso is clearly ultra vires and unconstitutional. In the case at hand, provisional attachment was passed by the G.S.T. authorities. The registration of the Sale Certificate was rejected for this reason. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was a prior mortgagee in the year 2017, whereas the provisional attachment was passed by the G.S.T. authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner would mainly contend that even applying Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules, the socalled provisional attachment has lapsed by operation of law itself. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, Sec.83 of the G.S.T.Act makes it very clear that any provisional attachment passed under Sec.83 (1) of the Act will continue only for a period of one year and not thereafter. Despite this being brought to the notice of the first respondent, the impugned order came to be passed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 6. This Court has encountered with several Writ Petitions challenging the orders of the Registering authority refusing to register the documents or transaction permitted under law. Though the rule 55(A) has not been directly challenged this Court is of the view that when a subordinate Legislation is ex facie found to be in conflict with the provision of the Parent Act and Transfer of Property act as well as constitutional rights, the sub ordinate legislation will have to yield to substantive law governing the field ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court challenging such refusals. In one such case, the issue was whether once a sale agreement is registered by the vendor, the subsequent documents in respect of the same immovable property could be refused to be registered by the Registrar. In other words, once an agreement for sale is registered under the Registration Act, whether the vendor is debarred from effecting any agreement or transfer in respect of the same immovable property. As there were conflicting decisions of single judges the matter was directed to be placed before a Division Bench. 9. The reference was eventually answered by the Division Bench in Ramayee v Sub-Registrar (2020 6 CTC 697) , in the following terms: As already indicated, the purpose of registration is only to give a public notice. It is for the buyer or subsequent transferee to make reasonable enquiry. Doctrine of caveat emptor will also apply to every transfer. It is for them to verify the title of the property by making reasonable enquiry. At any event, subsequent transfer will always be subject to the rights already created. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because agreement for sale is registered without obtaining decree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt published in the local Newspaper as to the notice of loss of the previous original deed: Provided also that production of the previous original deed shall not be necessary where the Government or a Statutory body is the executant of the document or for such class of documents as may be notified by the Inspector General of Registration, from time to time. (iii) The registering officer, on being satisfied that the description of the property contained in the document presented for registration conforms with the description of the property found in the previous original deed produced by the presentant as provided under this rule, he shall inscribe the word 'verified' on a conspicuous portion of the first page of such title deed and affix his signature with date and thereafter cause scanning of page containing such inscription as a reference document.'' (iv) In case where revenue records are produced under this rule, the same shall be scanned as the main document and where Non-Traceable Certificate and the advertisement published in the local Newspaper are submitted by the presentant, the same shall be scanned as reference documents: Provided that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry same day ie., 02.02.2023, the Inspector General of Registration issued Circular No 22482/Cl/2022, dispensing with the production of the original documents in certain situations indicated in the guidelines. In the considered opinion of this Court, the very fact that several exemptions had to be granted by a circular clearly demonstrates the unworkability of Rule 55-A(i). However, a very intriguing aspect lies in the amendment to Rule 162 inserting Clause XX which reads as follows: Clause XX Rule 55A. That the presentant of the document fails to produce the original deed or record specified in rule 55A. 13.a The newly introduced Clause XX is preceded by Clauses I-XIX authorizing the Registrar to refuse registration on the grounds set out therein. More importantly, each of the clauses authorizing the Registrar to refuse registration from Clauses I to XIX specifically refers to a substantive provision of law in the Registration Act or in some other legislation like the Income Tax Act. 1961 as the source of power. Clause XX on the other hand, does not refer to any substantive provision of law. Strangely and most curiously it authorizes the Registrar to refuse registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Property Act. The reading of the above section makes it very clear that even a person not entitled transferable property is competent to transfer such property when he was authorised to dispose of such property. 31. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the power of the ostensible owner to effect the transfer of the property with consent, express or implied of the real owner. 32. From the principle underlined in the Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is that the ostensible owner of the property, with the consent express or implied and representing himself as owner of the property though he is not having the title, can deal with the property. Similarly, Section 42 of the T.P. Act deals with the transfer by a person having authority to revoke the former transfer. When a person transfers any immovable property reserving power to revoke the transfer, and subsequently transfers the property for consideration to another transferee, such transfer operates in favour of such transferee subject to any condition attached to the exercise of the power as a revocation of the former transfer to the extent of the power. 33. Similarly section 43 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 38. Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with marshalling by subsequent purchaser. The above provision also makes it clear that when the owner of two or more properties mortgages them to one person and then sells one or more of the properties to another person, the buyer is in the absence of a contract to the contrary, entitled to have the mortgage-debt satisfied out of the property or properties not sold to him, so far as the same will extend, but not so as to prejudice the rights of the mortgagee or persons claiming under him or of any other person who has for consideration acquired an interest in any of the properties. The above provision also makes it clear that though there were mortgages already created there is no bar for subsequent transfer of the property. But subsequent transfer is subject to the mortgage earlier created. 39. Section 57 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the Provision by Court for encumbrances and sale freed there from. The Section also makes it clear that even the properties already encumbered can be brought under court sale and the encumbrance can be freed after issuance of notice to the encumberer. 40. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 41. The contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest or charge on such property. The agreement of sale is merely a document creating right to obtain a document of sale on fulfilment of terms and conditions specified therein and it is only capable of enforcement in the event of breach of contract by the other side. Even to enforce such agreement for specific performance, the agreement holder has to establish not only the contract but other grounds viz., ready and willingness on his part to get a decree of specific pereformance provided the suit is filed within time. 42. In Narandas Karsondas v. S.K. Kamtam [(1977) 3 SCC 247 : AIR 1977 SC 774] the Honourable Supreme Court also considered the nature of the right created on the immoveable property by a contract for sale. It has been stated that contract of sale in view of section 24 of T.P. Act does not of itself create any interest i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sociation v Union of India, 2021 SCC Online SC 463 , the Supreme Court quoted Chief Justice John Marshall s classic observation in Marbury v Madison (28 5 US 137): It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. The Hon'ble Supreme Court then went on to observe as under: 41. It is open to the legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the legislature to say that a judgment of a Court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court. 15.a. Thus, when the legal position has already been declared by the Division Bench of this Court and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court it is not open to the Inspector General of Registration to take a contra view and notify a subordinate legislation the effect of which is to completely render nugatory to the interpretation made by this Court. Ex-facie, the first proviso to Rule 55-A (i) is clearly illegal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adras,Bombay, Calcutta and Travancore-Cochin in the aforesaid cases appears to be reasonable and could be accepted as correct. The agreement for sale indeed creates an obligation attached to the ownership of property and since the attaching creditor is entitled toattach only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor, the attachment cannot be free from the obligations incurred under the contract for sale. Section 64 CPC no doubt was intended to protect the attaching creditor, but if the subsequent conveyance is in pursuance of an agreement for sale which was before the attachment, the contractual obligation arising therefrom must be allowed to prevail over the rights of the attaching creditor. The rights of the attaching creditor shall not be allowed to override the contractual obligation arising from an antecedent agreement for sale of the attached property. The attaching creditor cannot ignore that obligation and proceed to bring the property to sale as if it remained the absolute property of the judgment-debtor. 19. The effect of the first proviso, is to virtually nullify the aforesaid statement of law by the Supreme Court which is binding law under Article 141. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show his right over the subject property where the property is ancestral in character and there is no original deed available. Even a tax receipt can be produced under this proviso which is opposed to the fundamental principle of law that revenue records are not documents of title [State of A.P. v Star Bone Mill and Fertilizer Company, 2013 9 SCC 319]. Production of revenue documents to verify the source of title only demonstrates complete ignorance of the settled position of law. 23. Similarly, the third proviso also defies logic. If the original is lost, it is not understood as to why a certified copy of that document obtained from the file of the concerned SRO cannot be produced. When the best evidence is not available, the best course is to produce a certified copy which is the next best available alternative. Instead, the third proviso requires the executant to obtain a non-traceable certificate and effect paper publication. 24. It is also well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India , (2007) 13 SCC 673 that a subordinate legislation may be struck down as arbitrary or contrary to statute if it fails to take into acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
