The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying that registering officers under the Registration Act, 1908, have no authority to demand title proof of the vendor when registering property transfer documents. This decision came while striking down Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules as inconsistent with the parent legislation.
Background of the Case
The matter reached the apex court through Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025, filed by K. Gopi, who had entered into a sale transaction with a vendor named Jayaraman Mudaliyar. The sale deed was executed on September 2, 2022, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document on the ground that the vendor’s title was not established.
Despite the District Registrar later directing reconsideration, the Sub-Registrar once again declined registration, insisting on submission of proof of title. The appellant’s writ petition and subsequent writ appeal before the Madras High Court were dismissed, leading to the present civil appeal.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: SEBI Cannot Issue Multiple Orders on Same Cause of Action Principle of Res Judicata Applies
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, took exception to the State rule and emphasized that:
“The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title.”
The Court declared that the Registration Act, 1908, does not empower the Registering Authority to verify or validate the vendor’s ownership title. The responsibility of the Sub-Registrar is limited to ensuring procedural compliance and the payment of required stamp duty and fees.
Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules required that:
“No document related to immovable property shall be registered unless the presentant produces the original title deed of the vendor and a recent encumbrance certificate.”
Further sub-clauses mandated the presentation of other documents such as police certificates and newspaper advertisements in case of lost deeds, or patta/tax receipts in case of ancestral properties.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Partially Upholds Order Against Wikipedia for Allegedly Defamatory Content on ANI’s Page
The Supreme Court noted:
“Rule 55A provides that unless documents are produced to prove that the executant has a right in respect of the property subject matter of the instrument, the registration of the same shall be refused.”
This, the Court held, went beyond the scope of the Registration Act.
The Court thoroughly examined the Rule-making powers under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which authorizes the Inspector General of Registration to frame rules consistent with the Act. The Bench stated:
“None of the clauses under Section 69 confer power to refuse registration based on unproven title. Even State amendments such as Sections 22-A and 22-B do not authorize such denial.”
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Directs Centre to Enforce Media Gag Order in Ranya Rao Defamation Case
The Court clarified that Sections 22-A and 22-B allow refusal only in limited scenarios such as government land transfers, religious endowments, or properties involved in legal prohibitions like attachment orders or fraudulent transactions. Hence, the rule that empowered Sub-Registrars to reject registrations based on title documents was not legally valid.
The Supreme Court ruled that:
“Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Therefore, it is ultra vires and invalid.”
Case : K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
Appearance: AOR Qurratulain for appellate; Sr Adv P.S. Raman, Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and AOR Sabarish Subramanian for State
