Registering Authority Not Empowered To Adjudicate Upon Executant’s Title Over The Property: SCI

In Gopi Vs Sub-Registrar & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India declared that the Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules that precluded the registering authority from registering a document relating to an immovable property unless the executant produced the previous original deed by which he acquired right over the property, among other things, as ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908 and reiterated that the registering authority is not empowered to adjudicate whether the executant has title over the property in question.

CASE SUMMARY

FACTS OF THE CASE:

- A Sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant in respect of a property. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the Sale deed.

- The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the refusal. The writ petition was dismissed.

- Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal to the District Registrar against the Sub-Registrar's order refusing registration. The appeal was allowed and the District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider his decision.

- The Sub-Registrar directed the appellant to resubmit the document along with proof of the vendor’s title to transfer the property. The appellant again submitted the Sale deed for registration. However, by the order passed on the same day, the registration was refused.

- A writ petition was filed against the order of refusal. The writ petition was dismissed.

- The writ appeal challenging the order in the writ petition was dismissed stating that under Rule 55A of the Registration Rules, the Sub-Registrar was entitled to refuse the registration of the Sale deed on the ground that the appellant’s vendor has not established his title and ownership.

- The Supreme Court permitted the appellant to amend the petition for Special Leave to Appeal to incorporate a challenge to the validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules. Accordingly, the SLP was amended.

SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT:

- The Sub-Registrar, who is empowered to register a document under the 1908 Act, is not empowered to go into the question of the title of the person executing the document.

- Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 which speaks of the rule making power of the Inspector General of Registration does not empower the Inspector General to frame Rules providing power to refuse registration of a sale deed or transfer deed in case the vendor has failed to prove his title. Therefore, Rule 55(A)(i) is ultra vires the provisions of the 1908 Act and hence invalid.

- In the 1908 Act, there is no provision to refuse registration on the ground that the vendor has not proved his title.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT:

- The challenge to the validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules is pending before the High Court, therefore, in the SLP, for the first time, the challenge to the validity cannot be entertained.

- The Rule 55A has been framed to prevent registration of bogus transactions.

- The Rule has been framed well within the Rule-making power conferred under Section 69 of the 1908 Act. Therefore, no interference is called for.

DECISION OF THE COURT: The appeal was allowed and Rule 55A of the Registration Rules is declared ultra – vires the Registration Act, 1908. The Appellant was permitted to lodge the sale deed again for registration and upon procedural compliances, the Sub – Registrar was directed to proceed with the registration.

REASONS:

- Provisions under the 1908 Act does not confer power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document on the ground that the documents regarding the title of the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established.

- The registering authority has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title.

- Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the Registering Officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary Stamp Duty as well as Registration charges are paid.

- Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances the document must be registered.

- The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.

- The rule making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) will have to be declared ultra vires the 1908 Act.

DATE OF THE JUDGMENT:  07.04.2025

(This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.)

The case summary was prepared by our Associate advocate, Neeraja M.