Registration Of Document Recording Purchase Of Immovable Property Doesn’t Confer Guaranteed Title Of Ownership: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the registration of a document recording purchase of immovable property does not confer guaranteed title of ownership, instead it only serves as a public record of the transaction having presumptive evidentiary value, but it is never a conclusive proof of ownership.

The Court observed thus in Civil Appeals arising out of the Judgment of the Patna High Court, which dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the vires of sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, introduced through the 2019 amendment to the Rules.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi explained, “Rather strangely these legislations have long sustained dichotomy between ownership and registration. While Transfer of Property Act provides substantive legal framework for purchase and sale of immovable property and the Stamp Act imposes a fiscal charge on the transferable property as a precondition for registration, the Registration Act institutionalizes the process of registering documents to create a public record of immovable property transactions. The Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not the title and this distinction is the fundamental character of our country’s presumptive titling system through registration. Thus, registration of a document recording purchase of immovable property does not confer guaranteed title of ownership, instead it only serves as a public record of the transaction having presumptive evidentiary value, but it is never a conclusive proof of ownership.”

The Bench was of the opinion that following good governance through modern legislation, it is necessary to fully institutionalize the registration offices by establishing a permanent regulatory body, which will enable real time assessment and development of the establishment through institutional efficiency and expertise.

“A permanent body will enable institutional memory for upgradation and improvement. It will also enable course correction and modernization”, it added.

Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra and AOR A. Velan appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar and AOR Manish Kumar appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

Sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) were introduced by way of amendments to Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, empowering registering authorities to refuse registration of documents, if proof of mutation of the property under sale in favour of the vendor is not produced along with the registering document. These sub-rules were challenged unsuccessfully before the High Court and hence, the case was before the Apex Court. The Rules, as well as the amendment in 2019, were made in exercise of the rule making power of the Inspector General of Registration under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in the above regard, held, “… we have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making power under Section 69 or any other provisions of the Act.”

The Court remarked that there is a big missing link given that the process of mutation and the process of survey and settlement are nowhere near completion.

“Under these circumstances and considering the nascent stage at which the empirical data is translated as mutation into the relevant records and the fact that for this purpose survey and settlement are to be conducted, interlinking and restraining registration till the jamabandi or holding allotment is effected would be illegal, as it has a direct impact on the right and freedom to purchase and sell property”, it said.

The Court was of the view that a requirement of rules, regulations or even law that impedes or restrains easy and effective transfer of property will be illegal as it has the direct effect of ‘depriving of property’ to that extent, and such delays, caused due to unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions, impinge the right to hold and dispose of property.

“We therefore hold that the prescription of mentioning and production of jamabandi allotment or holding allotment as a pre-condition for registration of a legally presented document under impugned sub-rules 19 (xvii) and (xviii) is arbitrary and illegal and as such, liable to be set aside”, it further held.

Dichotomy between registration and title

The Court observed that the presumption is rebuttable and can always be challenged in a Court of law and this system has therefore placed a significant burden of due diligence on a prospective buyer who must undertake a painstaking title search, examining the chain of ownership through a series of past deeds, sometimes going beyond 30 years or more, to ensure marketable title.

“The uncertainty also compels obtaining a no encumbrance certificate from the sub registrar’s office to confirm that the property is free from legal liabilities or mortgage. Property purchase has not been easy, it is not difficult to find people grudgingly telling us that it is in fact traumatic. The present system of presumptive title through registration is also the primary contributor to high volume of land related litigation in India. Property disputes account for an estimated 66% of all civil cases. More than a century has passed by, and we must dare to think and look for alternatives”, it added.

Technological possibilities

The Court noted that recognizing the profound inefficiencies and vulnerabilities in recording the real-estate transactions, Government in its effort to modernize these transactions has adopted certain measures such as the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP) and the National Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS).

“These measures involve computerization of land records, cadastral maps, integration of textual and spatial data and digitization of registration. Digitization is the process of creating an electronic copy of the existing paper record and if the original record is inaccurate, incomplete or subject to dispute, the digital version will simply perpetuate the flaw. The process of digitization does not by itself resolve the underlining title disputes or correct inaccuracies. Reformation based on conclusive titling is a colossal administrative and legal challenge”, it said.

The Court also noted that blockchain technology has garnered particular attention for its potential to transform land registration into a more secure, transparent and tamper-proof system.

“Each entry, once validated into the Distributed Ledger, becomes part of a cryptographically linked chain of information that cannot be retroactively altered without detection. This property of immutability could enhance the integrity of title records and strengthen public trust in the ownership framework. This cryptographic immutability could perhaps address the structural fragility of Indian record keeping system. The Blockchain design could integrate cadastral maps, survey data, and revenue records into a single verifiable framework, which, while maintaining a transparent audit trail, is accessible to multiple departments and the public”, it added.

Suggestions and Directions

The Court remarked that registration of deeds being a concurrent list subject, Government of India must take lead in constituting a body, with the participation of the States, to examine this issue in light of the technological advancement for integrating the property registration regime with conclusive titling.

“The process may involve restructuring and reviewing our existing laws, i.e. the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908, Stamp Act, 1899, Evidence Act, 1872, Information Technology Act, 2000, Data Protection Act, 2023 and may require introduction of new laws for incorporating Blockchain technology with necessary safeguards. This will necessarily require establishing regulatory framework which institutionalizes processes with integrity and efficiency”, it suggested.

The Court, therefore, requested the Law Commission to examine this issue in detail, consult the Union, the States and all other stakeholders as well as experts in the field of information and technology, and prepare a report on the issue that is highlighted.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and quashed the notification introducing Rule 19 (xvii) and (xviii).

Cause Title- Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1292)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, AOR A. Velan, Advocates Prince Singh, Nilay Rai, Anjul Dwivedi, Ram Sankar, and Harini Ramsankar.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, AOR Manish Kumar, and Advocate Divyansh Mishra.

Click here to read/download the Judgment