The Supreme Court has held that the registering authority can’t ascertain if a vendor has title under Registration Act.
The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka has observed 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. 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/fee are paid.
The bench stated that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.
The bench said that even if it is assumed that there is a power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act to frame the Rules, Rule 55A(i) 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. The rule- making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Rule 55A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act.
A sale deed was executed by one Jayaraman Mudaliyar in favour of the appellant. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed. The appellant filed a writ petition to challenge the refusal. However, the writ petition was dismissed.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the District Registrar against the Sub-Registrar’s order refusing to register the sale deed. The appeal was allowed by the order September, 2023, and the District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider his decision. By a letter dated 05th September, 2023, 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, registration was refused. A writ petition was filed against the order of refusal.
The writ petition was rejected. A writ appeal was preferred against the rejection of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, which has been dismissed by the order.
Rule 55A of the Registration Rules reads, “the registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation”.
The court held that as the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court, relying on Rule 55A(i), and since Rule 55A(i) is held to be invalid, the judgments must be quashed and set aside.
Case Details
Case Title: K. Gopi Versus Sub-Registrars
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3954 OF 2025
Date: April 07, 2025
![Udaipur District Court Quashes ACJM Order Upholding Coma Patient’s Will Without FSL Verification [READ ORDER]](https://www.jurishour.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/udaipur-district-court-218x150.webp "Udaipur District Court Quashes ACJM Order Upholding Coma Patient’s Will Without FSL Verification [READ ORDER]")
