Registrar Cannot Refuse To Register A Document On The Ground Of Lack Of Producing Document Of Execut

Supreme Court Strikes Down Tamil Nadu Rule Restricting Property Registrations, Affirms Sub-Registrar Cannot Judge Ownership

 

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has declared Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules as unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court clarified that Sub-Registrars have no authority to demand title documents or adjudicate ownership before registering a document.

 

The ruling, delivered on April 7, 2025, by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, comes in the case of K. Gopi vs. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.

 

Background of the Case

 

The case arose when the Sub-Registrar refused to register a sale deed dated September 2, 2022, executed in favour of the appellant, K. Gopi, by one Jayaraman Mudaliyar. Despite an initial setback in the Madras High Court, and even after the District Registrar directed reconsideration, the Sub-Registrar again refused registration, citing non-submission of title documents under Rule 55A(i).

 

Frustrated by repeated rejections, the appellant moved the Supreme Court and amended the petition to directly challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 55A(i), which mandates production of title deeds for registration.

 

Key Arguments

 

Gopi’s legal team argued that the Registration Act does not empower Sub-Registrars to verify or adjudicate the ownership of the property. They submitted that Rule 55A(i) goes far beyond the parent Act and is thus ultra vires.

 

The State of Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, defended the rule, saying it was framed to prevent fraudulent transactions and was within its powers under Sections 22-A and 22-B (as amended by the State).

 

Supreme Court’s Findings

 

The Court scrutinized the statutory scheme of the Registration Act, 1908, particularly Sections 22-A, 22-B, and 69. It held that:

 

The Act does not permit refusal of registration merely because title documents are not produced.

 

Sub-Registrars are not adjudicatory authorities; their role is limited to ensuring procedural compliance.

 

Rule 55A(i) confers powers on Sub-Registrars that are legally impermissible and contrary to the Act’s framework.

 

 

In strong words, the Court observed:

 

> “The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant… Even if an executant executes a sale deed in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all procedural compliances are made.”

 

 

 

Final Verdict

 

Declaring Rule 55A(i) ultra vires the Registration Act, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s earlier rulings. It granted K. Gopi one month to resubmit the sale deed, directing the Sub-Registrar to register it upon fulfilling procedural requirements.

 

Significance of the Ruling

 

This decision is a major win for property buyers and sellers in Tamil Nadu. It reinforces that registration authorities cannot act as title adjudicators and ensures that registration remains a procedural act — not a legal trial.

 

The verdict upholds the intent of the Registration Act — to maintain public records — without letting procedural overreach hinder genuine transactions.


AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube