Read Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/gqid/
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 69 – Rule 55A(i) of Tamil Nadu Registration Rules – Validity – Sub-Registrar’s Authority – Refusal to Register Sale Deed – Proof of Vendor’s Title.
Held
Rule 55A(i), which mandates production of previous original deed and encumbrance certificate to prove vendor’s title for registration of immovable property documents, is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, as it is inconsistent with the Act. Section 69 does not empower framing of rules allowing refusal of registration based on unproven title. Sub-Registrar lacks adjudicatory power to verify title; role is limited to ensuring procedural compliance. Registration cannot be refused for failure to establish vendor’s title, as the Act only transfers rights the vendor possesses. Impugned High Court judgments relying on Rule 55A(i) quashed. Sale deed to be registered upon procedural compliance within one month. Appeal allowed.
Citation: 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 42 : 2025 INSC 462
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J.; Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Date of Judgment: April 07, 2025
Parties:K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
- For Appellant: Ms. Qurratulain, AOR
- For Respondents: Mr. P.S. Raman, AG, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Facts
On September 2, 2022, Jayaraman Mudaliyar executed a sale deed in favor of the appellant, K. Gopi, for a property. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed, citing the appellant’s failure to establish the vendor’s title under Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 (the 1908 Act). The appellant challenged this refusal through a writ petition, which was dismissed. An appeal to the District Registrar resulted in an order on September 4, 2023, directing the Sub-Registrar to reconsider. However, on October 3, 2023, the Sub-Registrar again refused registration, prompting another writ petition, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a writ appeal, which was dismissed by the Madras High Court on March 20, 2024, upholding the Sub-Registrar’s authority under Rule 55A(i). The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, amending the petition to challenge the validity of Rule 55A(i).
Issues
- Whether Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules, which empowers the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of a document unless the vendor’s title is proven, is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908.
- Whether the Sub-Registrar has the authority to refuse registration of a sale deed on the ground that the vendor’s title is not established.
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition and appeal, relying on Rule 55A(i).
Arguments
Appellant
- The Sub-Registrar lacks authority under the 1908 Act to inquire into the vendor’s title when registering a document.
- Rule 55A(i) is ultra vires the 1908 Act, as Section 69, which governs rulemaking, does not permit rules that allow refusal of registration based on unproven title.
- The 1908 Act contains no provision authorizing refusal of registration for failure to prove title, rendering Rule 55A(i) inconsistent with the Act.
Respondents
- The State of Tamil Nadu offered to register the sale deed, suggesting the validity challenge might be academic.
- Rule 55A(i) was enacted to prevent fraudulent transactions, consistent with the objectives of Sections 22-A and 22-B of the 1908 Act (Tamil Nadu amendments).
- The validity of Rule 55A(i) is under consideration by the High Court, and the Supreme Court should not entertain this challenge in the first instance.
- Rule 55A(i) is within the rulemaking power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act.
Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declaring Rule 55A(i) ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, and quashing the impugned judgments of the High Court. The Court directed the Sub-Registrar to register the appellant’s sale deed upon procedural compliance within one month.
Reasoning
- Scope of Sub-Registrar’s Authority: Under the 1908 Act, the Sub-Registrar’s role is limited to verifying procedural compliance (e.g., presence of parties, admission of execution, payment of stamp duty, and registration fees). The Sub-Registrar has no adjudicatory power to investigate or verify the vendor’s title. Even if the vendor lacks title, the document must be registered if procedural requirements are met, as registration only transfers the rights the vendor possesses.
- Validity of Rule 55A(i):
- Rule 55A(i) mandates that the presenter produce the previous original deed and an encumbrance certificate to prove the vendor’s title, failing which registration is refused. This effectively empowers the Sub-Registrar to verify title, which is beyond the scope of the 1908 Act.
- Section 69 of the 1908 Act allows the Inspector General to frame rules consistent with the Act. However, none of the clauses in Section 69 authorize rules that permit refusal of registration based on unproven title.
- Sections 22-A and 22-B (Tamil Nadu amendments) specify limited grounds for refusing registration (e.g., government property, forged documents, or prohibited transactions), none of which include failure to prove title.
- Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the 1908 Act, as it introduces a requirement not contemplated by the Act. Consequently, it is ultra vires and invalid.
- Application to the Case: The High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition and appeal relied on Rule 55A(i), which the Supreme Court found invalid. The refusal to register the sale deed based on the vendor’s unproven title was therefore unlawful.
Disposition
- The appeal was allowed.
- The impugned judgments of the High Court dated March 20, 2024, were quashed.
- The appellant was permitted to lodge the sale deed for registration within one month, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to register it upon procedural compliance.
Significance
This judgment clarifies that the Sub-Registrar’s role under the Registration Act, 1908, is ministerial, not adjudicatory. It reinforces that registration authorities cannot refuse to register documents based on inquiries into title, as such powers are not conferred by the Act. The declaration of Rule 55A(i) as ultra vires underscores the limits of rulemaking authority under Section 69, ensuring that rules must align with the parent statute. This decision protects parties from arbitrary refusals of registration and upholds the procedural nature of the registration process.