Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 462
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3954 OF 2025
K. Gopi …Appellant
versus
The Sub-Registrar & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. This appeal takes an exception to the impugned judgment
th
dated 20 March, 2024, passed by a Division Bench of the High
nd
Court of Judicature at Madras. On 02 September, 2022, a sale
deed was executed by one Jayaraman Mudaliyar in favour of the
appellant in respect of the property mentioned therein. The Sub-
Registrar refused to register the sale deed. The appellant filed a
writ petition to challenge the refusal. However, the writ petition
was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal to
the District Registrar against the Sub-Registrar's order refusing
to register the sale deed. The appeal was allowed by the order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.04.07
18:28:25 IST
Reason:
th
dated 04 September, 2023, and the District Registrar directed
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 1 of 13
th
the Sub-Registrar to reconsider his decision. By a letter dated 05
September, 2023, the Sub-Registrar directed the appellant to
resubmit the document along with proof of the vendor’s title to
rd
transfer the property. On 03 October, 2023, the appellant again
submitted the sale deed for registration. However, by the order
passed on the same day, registration was refused. A writ petition
was filed against the order of refusal. The writ petition was
rejected. A writ appeal was preferred against the rejection of the
writ petition by the learned Single Judge, which has been
dismissed by the impugned order.
2. The writ appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment
by holding that under Rule 55A of the Registration Rules under
the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the 1908 Act) framed by the
Government of Tamil Nadu, the Sub-Registrar was entitled to
refuse the registration of the sale deed on the ground that the
appellant’s vendor has not established his title and ownership.
The relevant part of the impugned judgment reads thus:
“2. The petitioner presented Sale Deed for registration
under the Registration Act, 1908. The Sub-Registrar
refused to register the document on the basis that the
petitioner had not established his title and ownership,
as required under Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules.
Even on earlier occasion, the Writ Petition filed by the
petitioner was rejected on the ground that he has to
impleaded the legal heirs, since the petitioner claims
title based on the unregistered Will. In the event of
any doubt regarding title, the registering authority is
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 2 of 13
empowered to return the document under the
provisions of the Act. In the present case, the
petitioner was granted liberty to workout his remedy
in the manner known to law. When doubt arises and
the legal heirs are not impleaded, the parties are to be
relegated to approach the Civil Court and in the
present case, the Writ Court has rightly done so.
Thus, we do not find any infirmity in respect of
the order impugned.”
th
3. By the order dated 14 November, 2024, this Court
permitted the appellant to amend the present Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal to incorporate a challenge to the validity of Rule
55A(i) of the Registration Rules. Accordingly, the SLP was
amended. The first respondent, the Sub-Registrar, has filed a
counter-affidavit on behalf of the State Government in response
to the amended petition.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the Sub-Registrar, who is empowered to register a document
under the 1908 Act, is not empowered to go into the question of
the title of the person executing the document for transferring the
property. Learned counsel submitted that the Registration Rules
have been framed in accordance with the powers under Section
69 of the 1908 Act. Firstly, Section 69 does not empower the
Inspector General to frame Rules providing power to refuse
registration of a sale deed or transfer deed in the event the vendor
has failed to prove his title. Moreover, the Rules can be framed
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 3 of 13
which are consistent with the Act. In the 1908 Act, there is no
provision to refuse registration on the ground that the vendor has
not proved his title. Therefore, Rule 55(A)(i) is ultra vires the
provision of the 1908 Act and therefore, Rule 55(A)(i) is invalid.
5. The Learned Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu
appeared for the respondents and submitted that, without going
into the legal controversy, the state is prepared to take steps for
the registration of the sale deed. He submitted that the validity
challenge in respect of Rule 55A(i) is pending before the High
Court, and therefore, in this SLP, for the first time, a validity
challenge cannot be entertained. He submitted that in this case,
the issue of validity may be academic. He submitted that Rule 55A
has been framed to give effect to the object of preventing
registration of bogus transactions. He urged that the Rule has
been framed well within the Rule-making power conferred under
Section 69 of the 1908 Act. He urged that Rule 55A has been
enacted to give effect to Sections 22-A and 22-B of the 1908 Act
incorporated by the State amendment. Therefore, no interference
is called for.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
6. Rule 55A of the Registration Rules reads thus:
" 55A (i) The registering officer before whom a
document relating to immovable property is
presented for registration, shall not register
the same, unless the presentant produces the
previous original deed by which the executant
acquired right over the subject property and
an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 4 of 13
property obtained within ten days from the
date of presentation;
Provided that in case an encumbrance as to
mortgage, orders on attachment of property, sale
agreement or lease agreement exists over the
property, the registering officer shall not register
such document if the time limit for filing of suit is
not lapsed or No Objection Certificate is not
granted by the appropriate authority or raising of
the attachment is not done, as the case may be;
Provided further that in case the previous original
deed is not available as the property being an
ancestral one, the registering officer shall not
register such document, unless the presentant
produce any revenue record evidencing the
executant's right over the subject property such
as patta copy issued by Revenue Department or
tax receipt;
Provided also that if the previous original deed is
lost, the registering officer shall register such
document only on production of non-traceable
Certificate issued by the Police department
alongwith the advertisement published in the
local Newspaper as to the notice of loss of the
previous original deed;
Provided also that production of the previous
original deed shall not be necessary where the
Government or a Statutory body is the executant
of the document or for such class of documents
as may be notified by the Inspector General of
Registration, from time to time
(ii) The registering officer, on being
satisfied that the description of the property
contained in the document presented for
registration conforms with the description of the
property found in the previous original deed
produced by the presentant as provided under
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 5 of 13
this rule, he shall inscribe the word 'verified’ on a
conspicuous portion of the first page of such title
deed and affix his signature with date and
thereafter cause scanning of page containing
such inscription as a reference document
(iii) In case where revenue records are
produced under this rule, the same shall be
scanned as the main document and where Non-
Traceable Certificate and the advertisement
published in the local Newspaper are submitted
by the presentant, the same shall be scanned as
reference documents;
Provided that such verification and scanning of
the previous original deed or record in the
manner provided under this rule, shall not be
construed to be an act of ascertaining the validity
of the document presented for registration and
also the same shall not absolve or deprive any
person from the provisions contained in Parts XIV
and XV of the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act
XVI of 1908) "
(emphasis added)
7. In substance, Clause (i) of Rule 55A mandates that when a
document relating to an immovable property is presented for
registration before a registering officer, the same shall not be
registered unless the presentant produces the previous original
deed by which the executant acquired the right over the subject
property and an encumbrance certificate obtained within ten days
of the date of presentation. It is also provided that, in the event of
an encumbrance such as a mortgage, attachment, sale
agreement, or lease agreement, the registering officer shall not
register such a document if the time limit for filing a suit for
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 6 of 13
specific performance has not lapsed or the appropriate authority
has not granted a No Objection Certificate.
8. At this stage, we must also refer to Sections 22-A and 22-B
incorporated by the State of Tamil Nadu in the 1908 Act. Sections
22-A and 22-B of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act,
2008 read thus:
“ 22-A Refusal to register certain documents -
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
the registering officer shall refuse to register any
of the following documents namely:-
(1) instrument relating to the transfer of
immovable properties by way of sale, gift,
mortgage, exchange or lease:
(i) belonging to the State Government or the
local authority or Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority established under
Section 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971;
(ii) belonging to, or given or endowed for the
purpose of any religious institution to which
the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable;
(iii) donated for Bhoodan Yagna and vested the
Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board
established under Section 3 of the Tamil
Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958; or
(iv) of Wakfs which are under the
superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakf
Board established under the Wakf Act, 1995;
unless a sanction in this regard issued by the
competent authority as provided under the
relevant Act or in the absence of any such
authority, an authority so authorised by the State
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 7 of 13
Government for this purpose, is produced before
the registering officer;
(2) instrument relating to the transfer of
ownership of lands converted as house sites
without the permission for development of such
land from planning authority concerned;
provided that the house sites without such
permission may be registered if it is shown that
the same house site has been previously
registered as house site "
22-B. Refusal to register forged documents
and other documents prohibited by law -
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
the registering officer shall refuse to register the
following documents, namely:-
(1) forged document;
(2) document relating to transaction, which is
prohibited by any Central Act or State Act for the
time being in force;
(3) document relating to transfer of immovable
property by way of sale, gift, lease or otherwise,
which is attached permanently or provisionally by
a competent authority under any Central Act or
State Act for the time being in force or any Court
or Tribunal;
(4) any other document as the State Government
may, by notification, specify ”
9. In the present case, the registration was refused on the
ground that the title of the vendor and the appellant was not
established. On plain reading of Sections 22-A and 22-B, on the
ground of failure to produce documents of title of the vendor,
registration could not have been refused.
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 8 of 13
10. Now, we come to the Rule-making power under Section 69
of the 1908 Act, which reads thus:
“69. Power of Inspector General to
superintend registration offices and make
rules .—(1) The Inspector General shall exercise a
general superintendence over all the registration
offices in the territories under the State
Government and shall have power from time to
time to make rules consistent with this Act —
(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers
and documents;
(aa) providing the manner in which and the
safeguards subject to which the books may be
kept in computer floppies or diskettes or in any
other electronic form under sub-section (1) of
Section 16-A;
(b) declaring what languages shall be deemed to
be commonly used in each district;
(c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be
recognized under Section 21;
(d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under
Sections 25 and 34, respectively;
(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion
reposed in the registering officer by Section 63;
(f) regulating the form in which registering officers
are to make memoranda of documents;
(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars
and Sub-Registrars of the books kept in their
respective offices under Section 51;
(gg) regulating the manner in which the
instruments referred to in sub-section (2) of
Section 88 may be presented for registration;
(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in
Indexes Nos. I, II, III and IV, respectively;
(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in
the registration offices; and
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 9 of 13
(j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the
Registrars and Sub-Registrars.
(2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the
State Government for approval and, after they
have been approved, they shall be published in
the Official Gazette, and on publication shall have
effect as if enacted in this Act. ”
(emphasis added)
11. None of Clauses (a) to (j) provides for framing Rules
conferring power on the registering authority to refuse registration
of a document of transfer. No provision under the 1908 Act
confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer
document on the ground that the documents regarding the title of
the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established. Even
Sections 22-A and 22-B, incorporated by way of State
amendment, do not have such a provision.
12. Section 22-A is restricted to specific cases. Sub-Section (1)
thereof confers power on the registering officer to refuse
registration in respect of the properties mentioned in clauses (i) to
(iv). Sub-Section (2) of Section 22-A enables the registering officer
to refuse registration of instruments relating to the transfer of
ownership of lands converted as house sites without the
permission for development being granted by the planning
authority. Section 22-B enables the registering officer to refuse
registration of a forged document. It also confers power on the
registering officer to refuse registration of a document in respect
of a transaction that is prohibited under either the laws of the
State or the Central Government. If any property has been
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 10 of 13
attached either permanently or provisionally by a competent
authority under the Central Act or State Act, Section 22-B enjoins
the registering officer to refuse registration of a document making
a transfer. Sections 22-A and 22-B provide for mandatory refusal
of registration of the documents covered by specific categories
mentioned therein
13. In contrast, Rule 55A empowers the registering officer to
refuse registration unless the presentant produces the original
deed by which the executant acquired rights over the subject
property and an encumbrance certificate pertaining to the
property, obtained within ten days from the date of presentation.
If the original deed is not available due to its antiquity, the
registration of the presented document will be refused unless the
presenter produces a revenue record that evidences the
executant's right over the subject property. If the original deed is
lost, the document cannot be registered unless a non-traceable
certificate is issued by the police department along with an
advertisement published in the local newspaper, giving notice of
the loss of the previous original deed.
14. In short, Rule 55A provides that unless documents are
produced to prove that the executant has a right in respect of the
property subject matter of the instrument, the registration of the
same shall be refused. Thus, if a sale deed is presented for
registration, documents must be produced to demonstrate that
the executant has acquired ownership of the property. In a sense,
power has been conferred on the registering officer to verify the
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 11 of 13
title of the executant. Unless documents are produced evidencing
title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall
be refused.
15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by
the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether
the executant has any title. 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.
16. Therefore, 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 rule-
making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 12 of 13
Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Rule
55A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act.
17. 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.
18. We, therefore, permit the appellant to lodge the sale deed for
registration within a period of one month from today. On
procedural compliances being made, the concerned registering
officer shall proceed to register the sale deed.
19. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
..…………………...J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
..…………………...J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
April 07, 2025.
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 13 of 13
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3954 OF 2025
K. Gopi …Appellant
versus
The Sub-Registrar & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. This appeal takes an exception to the impugned judgment
th
dated 20 March, 2024, passed by a Division Bench of the High
nd
Court of Judicature at Madras. On 02 September, 2022, a sale
deed was executed by one Jayaraman Mudaliyar in favour of the
appellant in respect of the property mentioned therein. The Sub-
Registrar refused to register the sale deed. The appellant filed a
writ petition to challenge the refusal. However, the writ petition
was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal to
the District Registrar against the Sub-Registrar's order refusing
to register the sale deed. The appeal was allowed by the order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.04.07
18:28:25 IST
Reason:
th
dated 04 September, 2023, and the District Registrar directed
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 1 of 13
th
the Sub-Registrar to reconsider his decision. By a letter dated 05
September, 2023, the Sub-Registrar directed the appellant to
resubmit the document along with proof of the vendor’s title to
rd
transfer the property. On 03 October, 2023, the appellant again
submitted the sale deed for registration. However, by the order
passed on the same day, registration was refused. A writ petition
was filed against the order of refusal. The writ petition was
rejected. A writ appeal was preferred against the rejection of the
writ petition by the learned Single Judge, which has been
dismissed by the impugned order.
2. The writ appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment
by holding that under Rule 55A of the Registration Rules under
the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the 1908 Act) framed by the
Government of Tamil Nadu, the Sub-Registrar was entitled to
refuse the registration of the sale deed on the ground that the
appellant’s vendor has not established his title and ownership.
The relevant part of the impugned judgment reads thus:
“2. The petitioner presented Sale Deed for registration
under the Registration Act, 1908. The Sub-Registrar
refused to register the document on the basis that the
petitioner had not established his title and ownership,
as required under Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules.
Even on earlier occasion, the Writ Petition filed by the
petitioner was rejected on the ground that he has to
impleaded the legal heirs, since the petitioner claims
title based on the unregistered Will. In the event of
any doubt regarding title, the registering authority is
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 2 of 13
empowered to return the document under the
provisions of the Act. In the present case, the
petitioner was granted liberty to workout his remedy
in the manner known to law. When doubt arises and
the legal heirs are not impleaded, the parties are to be
relegated to approach the Civil Court and in the
present case, the Writ Court has rightly done so.
Thus, we do not find any infirmity in respect of
the order impugned.”
th
3. By the order dated 14 November, 2024, this Court
permitted the appellant to amend the present Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal to incorporate a challenge to the validity of Rule
55A(i) of the Registration Rules. Accordingly, the SLP was
amended. The first respondent, the Sub-Registrar, has filed a
counter-affidavit on behalf of the State Government in response
to the amended petition.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the Sub-Registrar, who is empowered to register a document
under the 1908 Act, is not empowered to go into the question of
the title of the person executing the document for transferring the
property. Learned counsel submitted that the Registration Rules
have been framed in accordance with the powers under Section
69 of the 1908 Act. Firstly, Section 69 does not empower the
Inspector General to frame Rules providing power to refuse
registration of a sale deed or transfer deed in the event the vendor
has failed to prove his title. Moreover, the Rules can be framed
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 3 of 13
which are consistent with the Act. In the 1908 Act, there is no
provision to refuse registration on the ground that the vendor has
not proved his title. Therefore, Rule 55(A)(i) is ultra vires the
provision of the 1908 Act and therefore, Rule 55(A)(i) is invalid.
5. The Learned Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu
appeared for the respondents and submitted that, without going
into the legal controversy, the state is prepared to take steps for
the registration of the sale deed. He submitted that the validity
challenge in respect of Rule 55A(i) is pending before the High
Court, and therefore, in this SLP, for the first time, a validity
challenge cannot be entertained. He submitted that in this case,
the issue of validity may be academic. He submitted that Rule 55A
has been framed to give effect to the object of preventing
registration of bogus transactions. He urged that the Rule has
been framed well within the Rule-making power conferred under
Section 69 of the 1908 Act. He urged that Rule 55A has been
enacted to give effect to Sections 22-A and 22-B of the 1908 Act
incorporated by the State amendment. Therefore, no interference
is called for.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
6. Rule 55A of the Registration Rules reads thus:
" 55A (i) The registering officer before whom a
document relating to immovable property is
presented for registration, shall not register
the same, unless the presentant produces the
previous original deed by which the executant
acquired right over the subject property and
an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 4 of 13
property obtained within ten days from the
date of presentation;
Provided that in case an encumbrance as to
mortgage, orders on attachment of property, sale
agreement or lease agreement exists over the
property, the registering officer shall not register
such document if the time limit for filing of suit is
not lapsed or No Objection Certificate is not
granted by the appropriate authority or raising of
the attachment is not done, as the case may be;
Provided further that in case the previous original
deed is not available as the property being an
ancestral one, the registering officer shall not
register such document, unless the presentant
produce any revenue record evidencing the
executant's right over the subject property such
as patta copy issued by Revenue Department or
tax receipt;
Provided also that if the previous original deed is
lost, the registering officer shall register such
document only on production of non-traceable
Certificate issued by the Police department
alongwith the advertisement published in the
local Newspaper as to the notice of loss of the
previous original deed;
Provided also that production of the previous
original deed shall not be necessary where the
Government or a Statutory body is the executant
of the document or for such class of documents
as may be notified by the Inspector General of
Registration, from time to time
(ii) The registering officer, on being
satisfied that the description of the property
contained in the document presented for
registration conforms with the description of the
property found in the previous original deed
produced by the presentant as provided under
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 5 of 13
this rule, he shall inscribe the word 'verified’ on a
conspicuous portion of the first page of such title
deed and affix his signature with date and
thereafter cause scanning of page containing
such inscription as a reference document
(iii) In case where revenue records are
produced under this rule, the same shall be
scanned as the main document and where Non-
Traceable Certificate and the advertisement
published in the local Newspaper are submitted
by the presentant, the same shall be scanned as
reference documents;
Provided that such verification and scanning of
the previous original deed or record in the
manner provided under this rule, shall not be
construed to be an act of ascertaining the validity
of the document presented for registration and
also the same shall not absolve or deprive any
person from the provisions contained in Parts XIV
and XV of the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act
XVI of 1908) "
(emphasis added)
7. In substance, Clause (i) of Rule 55A mandates that when a
document relating to an immovable property is presented for
registration before a registering officer, the same shall not be
registered unless the presentant produces the previous original
deed by which the executant acquired the right over the subject
property and an encumbrance certificate obtained within ten days
of the date of presentation. It is also provided that, in the event of
an encumbrance such as a mortgage, attachment, sale
agreement, or lease agreement, the registering officer shall not
register such a document if the time limit for filing a suit for
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 6 of 13
specific performance has not lapsed or the appropriate authority
has not granted a No Objection Certificate.
8. At this stage, we must also refer to Sections 22-A and 22-B
incorporated by the State of Tamil Nadu in the 1908 Act. Sections
22-A and 22-B of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act,
2008 read thus:
“ 22-A Refusal to register certain documents -
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
the registering officer shall refuse to register any
of the following documents namely:-
(1) instrument relating to the transfer of
immovable properties by way of sale, gift,
mortgage, exchange or lease:
(i) belonging to the State Government or the
local authority or Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority established under
Section 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971;
(ii) belonging to, or given or endowed for the
purpose of any religious institution to which
the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable;
(iii) donated for Bhoodan Yagna and vested the
Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board
established under Section 3 of the Tamil
Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958; or
(iv) of Wakfs which are under the
superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakf
Board established under the Wakf Act, 1995;
unless a sanction in this regard issued by the
competent authority as provided under the
relevant Act or in the absence of any such
authority, an authority so authorised by the State
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 7 of 13
Government for this purpose, is produced before
the registering officer;
(2) instrument relating to the transfer of
ownership of lands converted as house sites
without the permission for development of such
land from planning authority concerned;
provided that the house sites without such
permission may be registered if it is shown that
the same house site has been previously
registered as house site "
22-B. Refusal to register forged documents
and other documents prohibited by law -
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
the registering officer shall refuse to register the
following documents, namely:-
(1) forged document;
(2) document relating to transaction, which is
prohibited by any Central Act or State Act for the
time being in force;
(3) document relating to transfer of immovable
property by way of sale, gift, lease or otherwise,
which is attached permanently or provisionally by
a competent authority under any Central Act or
State Act for the time being in force or any Court
or Tribunal;
(4) any other document as the State Government
may, by notification, specify ”
9. In the present case, the registration was refused on the
ground that the title of the vendor and the appellant was not
established. On plain reading of Sections 22-A and 22-B, on the
ground of failure to produce documents of title of the vendor,
registration could not have been refused.
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 8 of 13
10. Now, we come to the Rule-making power under Section 69
of the 1908 Act, which reads thus:
“69. Power of Inspector General to
superintend registration offices and make
rules .—(1) The Inspector General shall exercise a
general superintendence over all the registration
offices in the territories under the State
Government and shall have power from time to
time to make rules consistent with this Act —
(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers
and documents;
(aa) providing the manner in which and the
safeguards subject to which the books may be
kept in computer floppies or diskettes or in any
other electronic form under sub-section (1) of
Section 16-A;
(b) declaring what languages shall be deemed to
be commonly used in each district;
(c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be
recognized under Section 21;
(d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under
Sections 25 and 34, respectively;
(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion
reposed in the registering officer by Section 63;
(f) regulating the form in which registering officers
are to make memoranda of documents;
(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars
and Sub-Registrars of the books kept in their
respective offices under Section 51;
(gg) regulating the manner in which the
instruments referred to in sub-section (2) of
Section 88 may be presented for registration;
(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in
Indexes Nos. I, II, III and IV, respectively;
(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in
the registration offices; and
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 9 of 13
(j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the
Registrars and Sub-Registrars.
(2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the
State Government for approval and, after they
have been approved, they shall be published in
the Official Gazette, and on publication shall have
effect as if enacted in this Act. ”
(emphasis added)
11. None of Clauses (a) to (j) provides for framing Rules
conferring power on the registering authority to refuse registration
of a document of transfer. No provision under the 1908 Act
confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer
document on the ground that the documents regarding the title of
the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established. Even
Sections 22-A and 22-B, incorporated by way of State
amendment, do not have such a provision.
12. Section 22-A is restricted to specific cases. Sub-Section (1)
thereof confers power on the registering officer to refuse
registration in respect of the properties mentioned in clauses (i) to
(iv). Sub-Section (2) of Section 22-A enables the registering officer
to refuse registration of instruments relating to the transfer of
ownership of lands converted as house sites without the
permission for development being granted by the planning
authority. Section 22-B enables the registering officer to refuse
registration of a forged document. It also confers power on the
registering officer to refuse registration of a document in respect
of a transaction that is prohibited under either the laws of the
State or the Central Government. If any property has been
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 10 of 13
attached either permanently or provisionally by a competent
authority under the Central Act or State Act, Section 22-B enjoins
the registering officer to refuse registration of a document making
a transfer. Sections 22-A and 22-B provide for mandatory refusal
of registration of the documents covered by specific categories
mentioned therein
13. In contrast, Rule 55A empowers the registering officer to
refuse registration unless the presentant produces the original
deed by which the executant acquired rights over the subject
property and an encumbrance certificate pertaining to the
property, obtained within ten days from the date of presentation.
If the original deed is not available due to its antiquity, the
registration of the presented document will be refused unless the
presenter produces a revenue record that evidences the
executant's right over the subject property. If the original deed is
lost, the document cannot be registered unless a non-traceable
certificate is issued by the police department along with an
advertisement published in the local newspaper, giving notice of
the loss of the previous original deed.
14. In short, Rule 55A provides that unless documents are
produced to prove that the executant has a right in respect of the
property subject matter of the instrument, the registration of the
same shall be refused. Thus, if a sale deed is presented for
registration, documents must be produced to demonstrate that
the executant has acquired ownership of the property. In a sense,
power has been conferred on the registering officer to verify the
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 11 of 13
title of the executant. Unless documents are produced evidencing
title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall
be refused.
15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by
the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether
the executant has any title. 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.
16. Therefore, 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 rule-
making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 12 of 13
Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Rule
55A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act.
17. 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.
18. We, therefore, permit the appellant to lodge the sale deed for
registration within a period of one month from today. On
procedural compliances being made, the concerned registering
officer shall proceed to register the sale deed.
19. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
..…………………...J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
..…………………...J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
April 07, 2025.
Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Page 13 of 13