Registration authorities must confine inquiries to registrability and leave civil rights to civil courts.

The appellant presented a settlement deed for registration on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 8 August 1993. The Sub-Registrar issued a refusal check slip.

In her writ petition, the appellant challenged the refusal; the Single Judge directed the registering authority to notify the testator’s Class I legal heirs, enquire whether the Will had been revoked or whether a competent civil court had restrained reliance on it, and then register the deed or issue a speaking order of refusal within 30 days of its re-presentation.

The appellant appealed, arguing that a Will need not be registered and that the registering authority could not enquire into civil rights.

1. Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration merely because the settlement deed relied on an unregistered Will.

2. Whether the registering authority could be directed to enquire into the Will’s status and notify the testator’s Class I legal heirs, or whether such matters concerned civil rights beyond its authority.

Under Sections 71 and 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, a refusal to register must be reasoned, and an aggrieved presenter may challenge the refusal through the statutory process, including an appeal under Section 72. A civil suit under Section 77 is available following the statutory process; the registering and appellate authorities cannot adjudicate title, ownership, or other civil rights between parties.

In K. Gopi v. The Sub Registrar and Others, 2025 INSC 462, the Supreme Court held that a registering officer cannot refuse registration on the ground that the executant lacks title, provided procedural requirements and payment of applicable charges are satisfied; registration transfers only such rights as the executant possesses.

The Division Bench also relied on Munusami v. The Sub Registrar and Others, 2025/MHC/2588, which confined registration authorities’ inquiries to whether a document may be registered, not the determination of civil rights.

The Court treated the refusal check slip as a preliminary decision and held that the presenter could make objections, after which the registering authority must conduct an enquiry and issue a speaking order under Section 71.

It emphasised that the statutory process provides for review of a refusal and, ultimately, civil-court determination of disputed civil rights; neither the registering authority nor the High Court should decide title disputes in that process.

The Court nevertheless upheld the Single Judge’s direction for notice to the Class I heirs and an enquiry confined to whether the Will had been revoked or its use restrained by a competent civil court, followed by a speaking order.

It made no order as to costs.