Registration Cannot Be Refused On Ground That Vendor's Title Is Not Established: Supreme Court Declares Rule 55A(i) Registration Rules Invalid

A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked, “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. We may note here 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 thereof 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.."

AOR Qurratulain represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate P.S. Raman appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

A sale deed was executed in favor of the Appellant. The Sub-Registrar declined to register the sale deed, a decision initially challenged by the Appellant through a Writ Petition, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Appellant’s appeal to the District Registrar resulted in an Order for the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the registration. However, the Sub-Registrar again refused registration, leading to another dismissed Writ Petition and a subsequent Writ Appeal, also dismissed by the High Court.

The High Court cited Rule 55A of the Registration Rules stating that the Sub-Registrar was entitled to refuse registration if the Appellant’s vendor did not establish proper title and ownership.

Court’s Reasoning

Under the scheme of the Act, the Supreme Court explained that it as 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 thereof 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 remarked.

The Court held that “assuming 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 rulemaking 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.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “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 impugned judgments must be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 462)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Qurratulain

Respondents: Senior Advocate P.S. Raman; AOR Sabarish Subramanian

Click here to read/download the Judgment