SUPREME COURT RULES SALE DEED REGISTRATION CANNOT BE DENIED FOR LACK OF TITLE PROOF
The Judgment in the Case of K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025, as delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on 7th April 2025. This Case primarily deals with the power of the registering authority under the Registration Act 1908, to refuse registration of a sale deed on the ground that the vendor has not established ownership and examines the constitutional validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules.
Facts of the Case:
The Appellant, K. Gopi, had executed a sale deed with one Jayaraman Mudaliyar for a property, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed on the ground that the vendor’s title was not established. The Appellant’s initial writ petition challenging this refusal was dismissed. He then approached the District Registrar, who directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the matter. However, even upon resubmi
The Judgment in the Case of K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025, was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on 7th April 2025. This Case primarily deals with the power of the registering authority under the Registration Act 1908, to refuse registration of a sale deed on the ground that the vendor has not established ownership and examines the constitutional validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules.
Facts of the Case:
The Appellant, K. Gopi, had executed a sale deed with one Jayaraman Mudaliyar for a property, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed on the ground that the vendor’s title was not established. The Appellant’s initial writ petition challenging this refusal was dismissed. He then approached the District Registrar, who directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the matter. However, even upon resubmission, registration was again refused. Another writ petition and writ appeal followed, both of which were dismissed. The High Court upheld the Sub-Registrar’s action, relying on Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which requires the production of original title documents or proof of ownership for registration. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred the present Appeal, also challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 55A(i).
Issues
- Whether Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, requiring proof of title for registration, is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908.
- Whether the Sub-Registrar has authority to refuse registration on the ground of unproven title.
- Whether the writ courts were justified in relegating the Appellant to civil remedies based on this rule.
Contentions by the Appellant
The Appellant argued that the Sub-Registrar has no legal authority under the Registration Act, 1908 to adjudicate upon or verify the title of the executant. It was contended that Rule 55A(i), framed under Section 69 of the Act, goes beyond the rule-making powers conferred and is inconsistent with the statutory framework, as the Act does not permit refusal of registration on the ground that the vendor has not proved his title. Therefore, the Appellant submitted that the rule is ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Appellant also pointed out that the registration authorities are only required to ensure procedural compliance, not to evaluate ownership rights.
Contentions by the Respondents
The Respondents, represented by the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, contended that Rule 55A was validly framed to prevent registration of fraudulent or bogus transactions and was within the rule-making powers under Section 69 of the Act. It was argued that the rule aimed to implement the objectives of Sections 22-A and 22-B, inserted by the State Amendment, which empowers refusal of registration in certain cases. Additionally, the Respondents submitted that the constitutional validity of the rule was already pending before the High Courtand hence, the Supreme Court should not entertain the validity challenge in this case.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that Rule 55A(i) is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, as it imposes a substantive condition that is not contemplated under the Act. The Court observed that the registration authority’s role is procedural and not adjudicatory in nature, it cannot decide whether the executant has valid title to the property. The Act does not empower the registering officer to reject a document solely on the ground that title documents are not produced. The Court emphasized that registration of a document only transfers such rights as the executant holdsand if he holds none, registration does not create title. Since Rule 55A(i) imposes an obligation contrary to this scheme, it was declared inconsistent and struck down. Consequently, the judgments of the High Court were set asideand the Appellant was allowed to re-lodge the sale deed for registration. The registering authority was directed to proceed with registration upon compliance with procedural formalities.
Parichaya Reddy
Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled Everything You Need to Know About Franchise Agreement‘, can be viewed at the link below:
Leave a Reply