Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan   has held that a Registering Authority cannot refuse to register a document for lack of proof of the vendor’s title, striking down Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules as unconstitutional. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors. ? 

• On 2nd September 2022, one Jayaraman Mudaliyar executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant K. Gopi in respect of a property. 
• The Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed, prompting the appellant to file a writ petition challenging this refusal. 
• After the writ petition was dismissed, the appellant preferred an appeal to the District Registrar against the Sub-Registrar's order. 
• The District Registrar allowed the appeal on 4th September 2023 and directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider his decision. 
• The Sub-Registrar then directed the appellant to resubmit the document along with proof of the vendor's title to transfer the property. 
• When the appellant again submitted the sale deed for registration on 3rd October 2023, the Sub-Registrar once again refused registration. 
• The appellant filed another writ petition against this refusal, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. 
• A writ appeal against this rejection was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on 20th March 2024. 
• The High Court held that under Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, the Sub-Registrar was entitled to refuse registration on the ground that the appellant's vendor had not established his title and ownership. 
• The appellant's claim was based on an unregistered Will, and the High Court noted that when doubt arises and legal heirs are not impleaded, parties should approach the Civil Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that no provision under the Registration Act, 1908 confers 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 Court noted that the registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant and has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. 
• Even if an executant executes a document for a property in which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse registration if all procedural compliances are made and necessary stamp duty and registration fees are paid. 
• The Court held that Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, as it improperly confers power on the registering officer to verify the title of the executant. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that registration merely transfers whatever rights the executant possesses; if the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer. 
• The Court declared Rule 55A(i) ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, as the rule-making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a rule inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act.

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 

• Registration Act, 1908 - The primary legislation governing the registration of documents in India. 
• Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 - The provision provides the power of the Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules consistent with the Act. 
  • Section 69(1)(a) through (j) enumerates specific areas where rules can be made, including safe custody of documents, language usage, territorial divisions, fines regulation, registering officer discretion, form of memoranda, book authentication, instrument presentation, index contents, holiday declarations, and general proceedings regulation. 
  • Section 69(2) requires that rules made under this section must be submitted to the State Government for approval, published in the Official Gazette, and only then have effect as if enacted in the Act. 
  • None of the rule-making powers listed in Section 69(1)(a) through (j) authorizes the creation of rules allowing registering authorities to refuse registration based on title verification. 
  • The Supreme Court determined that all rules made under Section 69 must be "consistent with this Act" - this key requirement formed the basis for declaring Rule 55A(i) ultra vires. 
  • The Court held that Rule 55A(i) exceeded the scope of these enumerated powers and contradicted the fundamental principle that registration authorities are not empowered to adjudicate on matters of title.