Madras High Court
S.Hepziba Kasthuri Bai (Died) vs A.S.A.Balachandran on 27 February, 2026
Author: G. Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran, S.Srimathy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 12.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
A.S.(MD)No.285 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.15321 of 2023
1.S.Hepziba Kasthuri Bai (died)
2.S.Gnanasigamani Rajadurai
[2nd Appellant is brought on record as Lrs
of the deceased sole appellant vide Court
order dated 20.06.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD)
No.811 of 2024 in A.S.(MD)No.285 of 2023] .. Appellants
Vs.
1.A.S.A.Balachandran
2.A.S.A.Rajendran
3.J.Joy Sarojini
4.D.Soundaravalli (died)
5.M.Pragasi
6.J.Mangalavalli
7.A.Kamala
8.A.Samraja
9.A.Doris
1/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
10.A.Adelin
11.Thilagavathi
[11th respondent is brought on record as Lrs
of the deceased sole appellant vide Court order
dated 20.06.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.811 of 2024
in A.S.(MD)No.285 of 2023]
12.Davidson Rajasingh Babu
13.Moses Rajaselvam
14.Krishtopher Vijayasingh ... Respondents
[Respondents 12 to 14 are brought on record as Lrs
of the deceased 4th respondent vide court order
dated 28.03.2025 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.5644
of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.285 of 2023]
PRAYER:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.21 of 2015 on the file of the
Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Tenkasi, dated 21.09.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.J.Kingsly Solomon
For Respondents : Mr.S.Subbiah [R1]
Senior Counsel
for Ms.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya
assisted by Mr.A.V.Arun
Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian [R2]
No Appearance [RR3, 5 to 9, 12 to 14]
2/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)
In view of the conflicting judgments regarding the
interpretation of Section 21(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, the Division
Bench of this Court while considering the Appeal Suit under Section 96
of Civil Procedure Code directed against the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.21 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District Judge, FTC,
dated 21.09.2023, had framed the following question for reference to the
larger bench:
“Whether the registration of a universal release
deed, which does not contain any description of property is
void for not being no conformity with Section 21(1) of the
Registration Act?”
2.The learned counsel appearing for the parties have placed
their arguments in detail tracing the legislative intent of Section 21 of the
Registration Act citing judicial pronouncements of the various High
Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
3.Before adverting to the question referred, it is pertinent to
state in brief the facts of case under consideration in the first appeal.
4.The suit for partition was filed by one of the daughters of
Thiru.A.S.A.Rathnasamy Nadar, against her brothers and sisters
questioning the validity of release deed, dated 20.05.1991 executed by
her and others as void, since it is vague and illegal.
5.The respondents had contested the suit stating that there is no
uncertainty or illegality in the release deed. The parties have understood
the recital and acted upon the released deed dated 20.05.1991 and they
are enjoying the properties as per the deed. The partition suit is filed 24
years after the release deed, hence, it is barred by limitation and also bad
for partial partition. It was specifically contended by the defendants that
after the release deed, the respective parties have acted in terms of the
release deed, therefore the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the
validity of the release deed.
4/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
6.The trial Court after examination of oral and documentary
evidence, dismissed the suit on the ground of estoppel and limitation.
Challenging the same, the Appeal Suit is filed by the aggrieved plaintiff.
7.In the course of argument, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant has contended that the deed of release marked as Ex.A3 in
this case, does not contain any description of the immovable properties
covered therein. Therefore, the very registration of the document is void
in view of the non-compliance of the mandate set out under Section 21 of
the Registration Act.
8.The learned Judges after hearing the above submission and
after referring the following judgments, to highlight the divergent views
of the Court, referred the matter to larger bench, framing the question for
consideration:
1.Valliammal vs. Tamil Selvi [A.S.No.189 of 2013 etc,
batch dated 16.12.2022];
2.Hoosein Abdul Rehman vs. Lakhmichand Khetsey
[AIR 1925 Bombay 34];
3.T.Shankaranarayan Nair vs. Achuthan Nair [1982
KLJ 61];
5/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
4.Paul Varghese Vs. C.C.Annie [2020 SCC Online
Kerala 24100];
5.P.A.J.Seetharamam Raju vs. Lala Gopikrishna
Gokuldoss Agency Department [1962 (75) LW 358];
6.Saiyed vs. Muhammad [1909 31 All 523];
7.Thomas vs. Sub Registrar [2025 SCC Online Ker
563];
8.Sab Mukhun Lall vs. Sah Koondun [1875 2 IA 210].
9.As the reason for referring the matter to larger bench, the
Division Bench has observed as below:
“17.In our experience, we notice that invariably such
universal releases are obtained only from female members of the
family. The male members of the family want to deprive the female
members of their right in the family properties. Article 15(3) of the
Constitution of India envisages making special provisions for women.
We need not go that far. If certain provisions are strictly applied, they
would go a long way in upholding the rights of women. Ex.A3 itself
states that the details of the properties belonging to the joint family
were not being mentioned. Section 21(1) of the Act envisages that a
document should contain description that is sufficient to identify the
property. But the case on hand is not one of sufficiency or deficiency.
It is a case of absence of description. The moot question is whether
even such document can be saved.
6/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
18.We are however clear that breach of Section 21(1) of the Act
cannot be taken advantage by a vendor who has received
consideration for the property sold by him. We therefore confine the
scope of reference only to cases of universal release deeds where the
consideration is nill or nominal. We are of the view that the issue has
to be authoritatively settled by a Larger Bench. We therefore frame the
question for reference in the following terms:-
“Whether the registration of a universal release deed
which does not contain any description of property is void
for not being in conformity with Section 21(1) of the
Registration Act? ”
10.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant referring to Sections 21(1), 22(2) and 87 of the Registration
Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for brevity), submitted that the
scheme under the Act, at the very threshold of the registration process,
the registering authority shall not accept a non-testamentary document in
the absence of description of property sufficient to identify the same.
The mandate prescribed in Section 21(1) of the Act is further reinforced
under Section 22(2) of the Act, which expressly provides that failure to
comply with sub Sections (2) and (3) of Section 21 of the Act, shall not
7/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
disentitle the document to be registered, if the description of the property
is nevertheless sufficient to identify the same.
11.The intention of the legislature is, while certain
imperfection in the mode of description of the property is found, if
identification of the same is possible, then such imperfection is
condonable and the registering authority can accept document for
registration. Contrarily, if there is total absence of description of the
property, it is not condonable and even if it is accepted for registration,
such document for the breach of Section 21(1) of the Act has to be held
as void. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius has to be
applied in this case while interpreting Section 21(1) of the Act. Saving
clause under Section 22(2) of the Act is concisely omitted under Section
21(1) of the Act. Therefore, the mandate of describing the property for
identification of the same is absolute and any defect is non curable.
12.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Raghavachari, appearing
for the appellant further submitted that the release of relinquishment
deed, which contains no description of the immovable property, fails to
8/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
meet the basic condition of territorial jurisdiction of the registration
authority. Therefore, Sections 17, 21 and 28 of the Act have to be read
conjointly. As a consequence, the universal release deed, which does not
contain any description of the property, is void.
13.The learned counsel further submitted that Section 87 of the
Act, which saves document from invalidation on account of defects in
procedure, will not apply to documents registered in breach of the
mandate under Section 21(1) of the Act. Section 87 of the Act protects
only those documents registered in deviation of the procedure. It does
not and cannot validate a document registered in the direct violation of
express statutory mandate.
14.The following judgments are relied upon by
Mr.V.Raghavachari, to buttress the above submission.
1.Baiji Natch Tewari vs. Sheo Sahoy Dhagut and
others [Special Appeal No.596 of 1890];
2.Somasundaram Mudaliar and others vs.
K.S.Rajappa Mudaliar [S.A.No.1606 of 1923];
3.Narasamma vs. Subbarayadu and others
[Manu/TN/0052/1895 @ Paras 6];
9/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
4.Valliammal vs. Tamilselvi [A.S.No.189 and 207 of
2013 and 1049 of 2012];
5.Nahar Singh vs Harnak Singh [(1996) 6 SCC
699];
6.Pawan Kumar Dutt vs. Shakuntala Devi [(2010)
15 SCC 601].
15.Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the firt
respondent submitted that as far as the facts of the case is concerned and
the recital found in Ex.A3, the relinquishment deed is not in breach of
Section 21(1) of the Act and therefore, the Division Bench ought not to
have been referred this case for a Larger Bench to decide the question
formulated. The recitals in Ex.A3 refer about the extensive properties
held by Rathnasamy Nadar and his death intestate. The parties having
understood about the identity and nature of the properties, had executed
the deed on 20.05.1991.
16.Preceding to the execution of the release deed and its
registration, there was an oral partition among parties and memorandum
of oral partition was executed. The properties held by Rathnasamy Nadar
10/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
are identifiable through documents. The statute does not mandate that
each and every property must be described with boundaries, extent,
Survey numbers and other details. The only requirement under statute
(Section 21(2) of the Act) is a description sufficient to identify. The
registering authority cannot deny registration of non testamentary
document, if the description of the property is adequate to identify the
same.
17.According to Thiru.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel,
terming Ex.A3 as universal release deed without description itself is
erroneous. Recital of Ex.A3, clearly states that vast properties at various
places, were left intestate by Rathnsasamy Nadar and after receiving
consideration, the right in those properties are released. The release
deed was executed on 20.05.1991. Challenge to this deed was in the year
2015 in the suit for partition. The said suit came to be dismissed on the
ground of laches, estoppel and limitation. The issue regarding validity of
this document with reference to Section 21(1) of the Act was not raised
either before the trial Court nor in the grounds of appeal, but only in the
course of argument to sidetrack, the appellant has raised this plea.
11/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
18.Though the question referred is settled and no more res
integra, in view of the spate of judgments, nonetheless, the matter is
referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, though
the issue is irrelevant to the facts of the case in hand.
19.The prime contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent is that Ex.A3 does not suffer any defect in description
incapable of identifying the property. The suit for partition containing
list of properties left by Rathnasamy Nadar, the oral partition effected
between the parties prior to the release deed, the purchase of one item of
property by the plaintiff herself subsequent to the release deed, are all in
unison, will prove that there was no ambiguity in the release deed
regarding identification of the property and the parties have accepted the
release deed and acted upon it.
20.In support of his arguments, Mr.Subbiah, learned Senior
Counsel relied upon the following judgments:
12/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
1.Parasharampantsadashivpant vs. Rama Bin
Yellappa and another in S.A.No.3 of 1809.;
2.Somasundara Mudaliar and others vs. K.S.Rajappa
Mudaliar [1927 25 LW 429];
3.Rajagopal Ayyar and another vs. Avadai Velar and
others [1961 2 LW 29];
4.P.A.J.Seetharama Raju and others vs. Messers,
Lala gopirishna Gokuldoss Agency Department [(1962) 75 LW
358];
5.Prem Singh and others vs. Birbal and others [2006
5 SCC 353].
21.In the course of the arguments, the learned counsels on
either side, to explain the sufficiency to identify, draw the attention of the
Court, the illustrations given under Section 29 of the Indian Contracts
Act. While the learned counsel appearing for the appellant referred to
illustration (a) given under Section 29 of the Indian Contracts Act, which
deals with agreements void for uncertainty submitted that universal
release deed is like an agreement to sell 100 tones of oil without any
indication to show what kind of oil intended to be sold.
22.Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that releasing all the properties of the father is akin to agree to
13/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
sell all the grains in my granary at Ramnagar as illustrated in (d) of
Section 29 of the Indian Contracts Act, which says that if 'A' agrees to
sell to 'B' “all the grain in my granary at Ramnagar, there is no
uncertainty to make the agreement void.
23.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed.
24.Before proceeding further, Section 21 and 22(2) of the
Registration Act is extracted below for easy reference:
“21. Description of property and maps or plans.—(1) No
non-testamentary document relating to immovable property shall be
accepted for registration unless it contains a description of such
property sufficient to identify the same.
(2) Houses in towns shall be described as situate on the north or
other side of the street or road (which should be specified) to which
they front, and by their existing and former occupancies, and by
their numbers if the houses in such street or road are numbered.
(3) Other houses and lands shall be described by their name, if any,
and as being the territorial division in which they are situate, and
by their superficial contents, the roads and other properties on to
which they abut, and their existing occupancies, and also, whenever
14/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
it is practicable, by reference to a Government map or survey.
(4) No non-testamentary document containing a map or plan of any
property comprised therein shall be accepted for registration unless
it is accompanied by a true copy of the map or plan, or, in case such
property is situate in several districts, by such number of true copies
of the map or plan as are equal to the number of such districts.
22. Description of houses and land by reference to
Government maps or surveys.—(1) Where it is, in the opinion of the
[State Government], practicable to describe houses, not being
houses in towns, and lands by reference to a Government map or
survey, the [State Government] may, by rule made under this Act,
require that such houses and lands as aforesaid shall, for the
purposes of section 21, be so described.
(2) Save as otherwise provided by any rule made under sub-
section (1), failure to comply with the provisions of section 21, sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3), shall not disentitle a document to be
registered if the description of the property to which it relates is
sufficient to identify that property.”
25.The scheme of the Act as we read, says, any immovable
property worth about more than Rs.100 has to be registered compulsorily
as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act. The Sub Registrar within
whose jurisdiction, whole or some of the properties is situated, can
15/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
receive the document for registration. In the light of the powers
conferred on the registering authority under Sections 21(1) and 22(2) of
the Act, which mandates that any non-testamentary documents relating to
immovable property is presented, the Sub Registrar should satisfy
himself that the description shown in the document is sufficient to
identify. Therefore, the litmus test for Sub Registrar to accept non-
testamentary document in respect of immovable property, is description
of the property sufficient to identify.
26.No doubt, Sections 64 and 65 of the Act lay down
procedure for registration in one sub-registration districts, where
documents relating to land in several sub-districts and districts,
respectively. However, if any lapse in the procedure contemplated under
Sections 64 and 65 of the Act, the lapse is curable under Section 87 of
the Act, which says 'nothing done in good faith pursuant to this Act or
any Act hereby repealed, by any registering officer, shall be deemed
invalid merely by reason of any defect in his appointment or procedure'.
The object of registering document is to give notice to the world that
such document has been executed and is in force.
16/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
27.In Valliammal's case, when an almost similar issue came up
for consideration, the Bench of this Court has held that a person, who is a
party to the document cannot challenge the same on the ground that the
registration is not in accordance with Section 21 of the Act. Law by now
is settled that the person executing the document, who is capable of
understanding the document, is bound by the recitals of the document,
unless it is proved that the same was obtained by fraud or force or
misrepresentation.
28.The implication of Section 21(1) of the Act is discussed at
para 20 of the Valliammal's case as below:
“20.Though Section 21 specifically requires the
documents of conveyance to contain the description of the property
to identify it, there is no provision which would invalidate the
document if the description of the property is not given. The
requirement under Section 21 as per plain language indicates that
description of property is mandatory and it is introduced, probably
with an avowed object to serve public interest so that anyone can
easily find out from the Register all the transactions in relation to
particular property. However, absence of specific description of
property in a document would not invalidate the conveyance or
17/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
registration as there is no specific provision either in the
Registration Act or in any other statute. Section 54 of the
Registration Act defines -sale- as a transfer of ownership in
exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part
promised. The Deed of Release involves transfer of ownership and
in the present case, it is for a consideration paid. The intention of
the parties to the document can be seen from the recitals of the
document where plaintiffs 1 and 3 have agreed to convey their right
in all the properties of their father whether it is movable or
immovable. The specific recitals would indicate in unambiguous
terms that the document is in respect of all the properties of
Vaiyapuri Gounder. Though the Deed of Sale is different from the
Release Deed, the Release Deed is not defined under the Transfer of
Property Act. If a person conveys interest either by a Release Deed
or by a Deed of Exchange, the document of conveyance by any
description if it conveys an interest in immovable property that will
satisfy the definition of -sale- and if it is in relation to immovable
property of the value of Rs.100/-, it can be made only by a
registered instrument. Since the document-Ex.A2 is registered, the
transfer is complete by execution of the Release Deed upon
registration.”
29.In the case in hand under consideration, the Bench has
recorded reasons for differing with the above observations and had relied
upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hoosein
18/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
Abdul Rehman vs. Lakhmichand Khetsey [AIR 1925 Bombay 34], in
which, it has been observed as follows:
“ .........Sections 21(1) and 22(3) plainly contemplate that
the description of the property shall be sufficient to enable the
property to be identified, if not entirely at any rate mainly from that
description and not from outside information such as other documents
or statements by witnesses. No doubt sections 28, 64 and 65 also, I
think, clearly intend that the Sub-Registrar should have the means of
ascertaining from the document itself whether the immovable property
to which it relates is wholly or partly situate in his sub-district.
Therefore a general description like “my family property” without any
details enabling a person to identify from the document itself or a
schedule attached to it the particular items of property included in
that general expression is not in my opinion sufficient to entitle a
document relating to immovable property to be registered. With due
respect, therefore, I venture to differ from the contrary ruling in
Narasimha Nayanevaru v. Ramalingama Rao (199 (10) MLJ 104) and
the case which follow it. In support of this opinion I may cite the
authority of my learned brother, Mulla J., who in his recent
commentary on the Indian Registration Act after referring to these
cases says at page 104:—
“This decision as well as the decision in the case where the
words of description were ‘my family property’ may be supported on
the ground that there was nothing on the face of the document to show
that the document related to immovable property.”
19/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
Obviously he does not consider those decisions sound and
suggests that they can only be supported on a ground which
practically deprives them of all relevancy on the point I have been
considering.”
30.The Bombay High Court, in a case where the document
presented for registration was refused by the Sub Registrar on the ground
that the description of the property was added subsequently and remained
without the signature of the executant.
31.All the judgments referred by the learned counsel on either
side indisputably, reiterates the fact that the description of the immovable
property must be sufficient to identify and this is a litmus test for
accepting the document for registration. The facts of the individual case
have been dealt in the cases referred and Courts have decided according
to the recital in the respective documents.
32.In view of Section 87 of the Act, if there is any violation of
the procedure contemplated under Sections 64, 65 and 66 of the Act, that
will not vitiate the legality of the document. Hence, it is also necessary
to examine whether a document presented for registration suffers
20/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
inherent defects of non-disclosure of the identity of the property or any
procedural lapse. In case of former, the defect is incurable and
registration is invalid. In case of latter, the registration is valid and
curable.
33.It is incorrect to plead that Section 22(2) of the Act will not
save any defect in describing the property. We are of the view that
Sections 21(1), 21(2) and 22(2) of the Act had to be interpreted by
harmonious construction of the provisions and to be read together and
not in isolation.
34.The question for reference in this case has been answered
atleast 65 years ago by the most revered Chief Justice of this Court
Thiru.Rajamannar along with Justice Thiru.Veeraswamy in Rajagopala
Ayyar and another vs. Avadai Velar and others [1961 2 LW 29]. In that
case, the sale deed in respect of undivided 1/3 share out of certain
'pangus' in that village was challenged on the ground that the property
was not properly described for identification and also on the ground that
there was some material alteration in the documents. The learned Judges
21/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
after going through the recital in the said sale deed and provisions of
Sections 21(1), 21 (2), 21(3) and 22 has held as follows:
“This section appears to be more or less
complementary to the provisions of Section 21 which require that
the description in a non-testamentary document" relating to
immovable property should be such as may be sufficient to
identify the property conveyed or dealt with by the document and
that whenever it is practicable the description of the property
should also be by reference to a Government map or survey. But
if a description sufficient to identify the immovable property
conveyed is contained in a sale deed, Section 21 does not appear
to warrant a refusal of its registration on the ground that the
description of the property in the document, though practicable,
was not by reference to a Government map or survey. In other
words, 'the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 21 are
only directory. That was the view taken by this court in one of the
earliest cases which is now supported by the provisions of sub-section
(2) of Section 22.
.......
As we said, the sale deed had already been registered and
considerations which bear upon the question whether the document
was entitled to be registered, have no longer any bearing in the present
case. We find, therefore, that there is no substance in the contention of
the appellants that the sale deed was void because it failed to comply
with the requirements of S. 22 and the Notification made thereunder.”
22/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
35.In Rajagopala Ayyar's case, the judgment of this Court
rendered in Somasundaram Mudaliar and others vs. Rajappa Mudaliar
[(1927 52 MLJ 140] has been referred. In Somasundaram Mudaliar's
case, the learned Judge of this Court has observed as follows:
“5. The above being the facts of the case as found by the
District Judge and as restated by me for being more intelligible, what is
the law that is applicable to the case. First it seems to me under Section
21(1) of the Registration Act the description of the properties should be
sufficient to identify the same. To carry out the policy of Section 21(1),
Clauses 2 and 3 are also enacted. Clause (3) says whenever it is
practicable survey numbers are to be given. It is clear that the word
"practicable" was used with reference to the parties. Here the parties
thought it is not practicable. Therefore the clause loses its apparently
compulsory nature by the use of the words "whenever it Is practicable."
But to remedy this defect and to add to the degree of compulsoriness
the Local Government Has made rules under Section 22(1) saying that
survey numbers are to be given where the lands are surveyed. Pausing
here the question arises what is the effect of this rule. Section 22(2)
deals with the effect of such a rule made by the Local Government
under Section 22(1). It says non-compliance with such rules shall not
disentitle a document to be registered if the description of the property
to which it relates is sufficient to identify that property unless otherwise
provided by Rule 26. I understand this exception to mean the rule itself
while saying the property shall be described in a particular way should
23/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
also say if it is not so described if should not be registered and where
the latter part is not in the rule, the document may still be registered
provided the description is sufficient to identify the property
notwithstanding the particular direction in the rule. This is the view
which the Judges who decided the decision in Appalacharyulu v.
Ramachandracharyulu (1922) 16 LW 287 were inclined to take though
it was not necessary to decide in that particular case. Notwithstanding
the breach of the direction to give the survey numbers, that the
description is sufficient to identify the property is clear not only from
the facts as given above but also from the view of the Local
Government from Rule 17, Ch. VI of its rules which says:
If property is described in a document by a specific
reference to an instrument which has been already registered... and if
that instrument contains the particulars required by Rule 16 and such a
description of the property as is required by the rules in force, the
description need not be repeated in the document.” (emphasis added)
36.These two judgments cited above, with adequate clarity and
felicity, in our view are sufficient to hold that not only the universal
release deed, but any release deed which fails to contain description of
the property sufficient to identify, will suffer breach of Section 21(1) of
the Act. The description of the property is however, need not be a
complete description mentioned separately under scheduled or to be
24/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
expressly mentioned in the recital with all details. Wherever practicable
full details shall be given. Where it is not practicable for the parties,
details sufficient to identify is adequate. Sufficiency to identify depends
on how the property is described in the document presented for
registration. It all depends upon the recital and expression used in the
recital of the document and how parties to the document understood it
and acted after execution of the document.
37.The difficulty for the Registrar to enter transaction in Index
No.2 against any specific Survey number, in case of omission to mention
survey numbers of the property, is at the most, only a procedural lapse,
which is curable under Section 87 of the Act. For that reason, the
validity of the registration cannot be questioned, if particulars of the
property provided in the deed is sufficient to identify.
38.The statutes regarding registration had undergone changes
since Act XVI of 1894 dated 23.04.1964. However, the words and
expression used in Section 21(1) of the Act, 1908 had been almost
consistent in respect of the essential part of the provision. Section 21(1)
25/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
of the Act can be pressed into service only in case of non- testamentary
document relating to immovable property, is accepted for registration
without certainty and insufficient to identify. If it is certain and sufficient
to identify, Section 21(1) of the Act is not applicable.
39.In case of documents, which do not reveal the identification
of the property or nature of the property and an omnibus expression like
'my family property' alone is mentioned in the recital, then such
document is to be held as void for lack of description and identification.
However, if recital discloses nature of the property and same is sufficient
of being identified, same cannot be considered as breach of mandate
specified under Section 21(1) of the Act.
40.For better clarity, we wish to add that there is a vast
difference between the expression 'my family properties' and 'all the
properties of my father'. Family includes parents, spouses, the parents of
the spouses and children. So when anyone say “my family properties”, it
may trace to any one of the relationship mentioned above, thus, it
becomes uncertain and ambiguous. Whereas, when the son or daughter
26/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
convey the property of their father, it is a single source capable of
identification. Therefore, even universal release deed will be valid, if
immovable properties referred in the deed is identifiable without
complete description.
41.Section 29 of the Indian Contracts Act illustrates what is
certainty and what is uncertainty. Illustration 'c' to Section 29 of the
Indian Contracts Act, reads as below:
“(c) A, who is a dealer in cocoanut-oil only, agrees to
sell to B “one hundred tons of oil”. The nature of A’s trade
affords an indication of the meaning of the words, and A has
entered into a contract for the sale of one hundred tons of
cocoanut-oil.”
42.Like the dealer, who deals with coconut oil alone, if he
agrees to sell 100 tones of oil, considering the nature of the goods he
trade, it is certain that he has entered into a contract for the sale of 100
tones of coconut oil akin to the release deed which mentions that one of
the party to the deed agrees to release all the right in the properties of
their father to other parties for certain consideration, that description is
27/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
sufficient to identify and it is in compliance of Section 21(1) of the Act.
It is profitable to look at the illustrations to Section 29 of the Indian
Contracts Act, though connected with movables and goods, it greatly
assists us to understand about the expression 'certainty' and 'identity'. In
the case in hand case Ex.A3, release deed speaks about the right in the
properties of the father, who died intestate. It also says describing all he
properties in detail is not practicable, hence the categories of properties
lone referred. Thus, the description is neither uncertain nor incapable of
identification. The properties of the father can be ascertained from the
documents, which confers title and right to the father. In case any dispute
regarding his right or share in the properties arises, same are question of
facts, which has to be decided in the Court of law.
43.As an epilogue, we hasten to add if universal release deed
without full description and without adequate consideration is to be held
as invalid, it will lead to fallacy of generalization. No transfer for
inadequacy of consideration be held per se invalid. It depends on
whether such transfer suffers any deceit, fraud, coercion, undue influence
etc., which will vitiate the transfer.
28/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
44.Likewise, identification of an immovable property is not
solely depends on its full and complete description. By circumstantial
narration, the property can also be identified. For the registration of a
deed, description adequate to identify is sufficient. Identification of the
properties mentioned in the deed is to be tested from the parties' view. It
depends on whether there was consensus ad idem among the parties in
respect of the property they deal. If any of the party to such document,
after due registration, pleads that there was no consensus ad idem in
respect of identification of the properties mentioned in the deed, he
should take the said plea at the earliest point of time after he/she realises
the lack of consensus ad idem.
45.For the reasons stated above, following Somasundaram
Mudaliar's case, Valliammal's case and Rajagopal Iyer's case, the
question of reference is answered accordingly. In other words, in an
universal release deed, if description of the property is sufficient to
identify, such deeds are valid and the Sub Registrar cannot refuse
registration quoting his power under Section 21(1) of the Act.
29/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
46.In the result, the Appeal Suit is remitted back to the
Division Bench to decide on other questions of law and facts raised in
the Appeal Suit.
[G.J., J.] & [S.S.Y., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]
27.02.2026
Index :Yes
Internet :Yes
ta
30/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )
DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND S.SRIMATHY, J.
AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ta A.S.(MD)No.285 of 2023 27.02.2026 31/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:10:12 pm )