Registration of Sale Deeds Cannot Be Refused for Lack of Vendor’s Title Proof

I. Case Background

In a landmark ruling dated April 7, 2025, in the case of K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025), a legal challenge was raised against the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register a sale deed for want of the vendor’s title documents. The judgment overturns earlier decisions by the Madras High Court, which upheld the Sub-Registrar’s reliance on Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908.

II. Factual Context

The dispute originated when Jayaraman Mudaliyar executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant, K. Gopi, on September 2, 2022. However, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document, citing the absence of the vendor’s original title deeds as per Rule 55A(i).

Despite the District Registrar directing reconsideration, the Sub-Registrar again refused registration. After successive writ petitions and appeals were dismissed, the matter finally reached the apex court for consideration.

III. Key Legal Issues

1. Can a registering officer refuse registration of a property transfer document merely because the vendor’s title documents are not produced?
   
2. Is Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908?
   
3. Do the provisions under Sections 22-A and 22-B empower the Registrar to examine the vendor’s title?

IV. Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments (K. Gopi):

• The Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to examine the vendor’s title.
  
• Rule 55A(i), mandating production of original title deeds, is inconsistent with the Registration Act, 1908, and hence invalid.
  
• Registration under the Act is a procedural function that does not require title adjudication.

Respondents’ Arguments (State of Tamil Nadu):

• Rule 55A(i) aims to prevent fraudulent transactions and is within the scope of Section 69 of the Registration Act.
  
• Validity of Rule 55A(i) is under challenge in the High Court and should not be ruled upon in this proceeding.
  
• Rule was framed in the public interest, relying on Sections 22-A and 22-B (Tamil Nadu Amendments) of the Act.

V. Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Lack of Statutory Power to Inquire into Title

The Court held that the Registration Act, 1908 does not empower a registering officer to examine the title of the vendor. Once procedural conditions are met — presence of parties, execution of the deed, and payment of registration charges — the document must be registered.

2. Invalidity of Rule 55A(i)

The Court scrutinized Rule 55A(i), which prohibits registration unless original title documents are produced. It held that:

• The rule confers adjudicatory power on the Registrar, which is not contemplated by the Act.
  
• The rule-making power under Section 69 is only procedural, not substantive.
  
• Rule 55A(i) is ultra vires the parent statute and hence invalid.

3. No Support from Sections 22-A and 22-B

While Sections 22-A and 22-B (Tamil Nadu amendments) allow refusal of registration in specific circumstances (e.g., government land, religious endowments, prohibited transactions), these provisions do not extend to general title verification.

4. Registrar’s Role is Ministerial, Not Judicial

The Court clarified that registering officers are not judges of title. A registered deed only conveys rights that the executant actually possesses. If he has no title, the deed conveys nothing — but that is for a civil court to decide, not the Registrar.

VI. Final Orders

• Rule 55A(i) was declared ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908.
  
• The High Court’s orders and Registrar’s refusals were quashed.
  
• The appellant was allowed to present the sale deed for registration within one month, and the registering authority was directed to proceed without requiring title verification.

VII. Legal Significance

This ruling reinforces a foundational principle of property law: registration is not a confirmation of title. By striking down Rule 55A(i), the court has prevented executive overreach and upheld the sanctity of procedural registration as distinct from substantive title adjudication.

The decision also offers clarity to landowners, legal practitioners, and registering authorities, setting a precedent against arbitrary refusals that are not supported by law.

Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.