Madras HC Lets Seller Re-Present 2.14-Acre Sale Deed After Registrar Raises Title Doubts, Says Ownership Is Not Registrar’s Call

The petitioner challenged refusal check slips dated 13 October 2026 concerning a sale deed executed on 9 October 2026 for 2.14 acres in Survey No. 883/1, Nallur Village. The Sub-Registrar had refused registration on the basis of doubts about the petitioner’s title and references to encumbrance entries and court orders. The petitioner asserted that title adjudication was outside the Registering Authority’s jurisdiction; the State submitted that the petitioner could first provide objections and supporting documents.

The Court noted that the refusal slip did not identify the court orders referred to, preventing the petitioner from assessing their relevance.

Under the Registration Act, 1908, the Registering Authority’s function is not to adjudicate an executant’s title; where the required procedural steps are satisfied and applicable stamp duty and fees are paid, the authority cannot refuse registration merely because it doubts the executant’s title. Registration transfers only such rights as the executant actually possesses (K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar and Others, AIR 2025 SC 1800).

Sections 71 and 72 of the Act concern refusal and appeal, while Section 77 provides a further remedy; the inquiry under these provisions does not empower registration authorities to determine title or civil rights (Division Bench decision).

The Court applied K. Gopi to hold that the Sub-Registrar could not determine the petitioner’s title. It also considered that the refusal slip referred to court orders without giving particulars.

Rather than decide the title dispute or direct unconditional registration, the Court allowed the respondents to provide copies of any relevant orders and required the petitioner to re-present the deed with objections and supporting documents. The Sub-Registrar was then to consider the petitioner’s response and any objections, within the limited scope of the registration jurisdiction.

The petitioner was directed to re-present the sale deed with a response and supporting documents; the respondents could furnish copies of relevant court orders. The Sub-Registrar must consider the material in accordance with law and the limits on the authority’s jurisdiction stated in K. Gopi. If registration is refused, a reasoned refusal order setting out the grounds must be issued. No costs were awarded.