Supreme Court of India
K. GOPIversusTHE SUB-REGISTRAR & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 462
- Decided
- 6 April 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
Rule 55A(i) is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908; consequently, a Sub‑Registrar cannot refuse registration of a sale deed for failure to produce the vendor’s title, and the impugned judgments are set aside.
Summary
The appellant, K. Gopi, sought registration of a sale deed executed by Jayaraman Mudaliyar, but the Sub‑Registrar refused on the ground that the vendor’s title was not established. The High Court upheld the refusal, relying on Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, and dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and subsequent writ appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 55A(i) is consistent with the Registration Act, 1908 and the power conferred by Section 69 to make rules. It held that the Act does not empower a registering officer to refuse registration for lack of title documents and that Rule 55A(i) exceeds the scope of Section 69, rendering it ultra vires. Consequently, the High Court’s orders were quashed, the appellant was permitted to resubmit the deed for registration, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules is consistent with the Registration Act, 1908.
- Whether a Sub‑Registrar may refuse registration of a sale deed on the ground that the vendor’s title is not established.
- Whether the rule‑making power under Section 69 of the Registration Act can be used to impose a requirement to produce title documents.
- Whether the High Court’s judgment upholding the Sub‑Registrar’s refusal is legally valid.
Legislation cited
- Registration Act, 1908s. 16-A, s. 21, s. 25, s. 34, s. 51, s. 63, s. 69, s. 88
- Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008s. 22-A, s. 22-B
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of order by the Division Bench of the High Court with regard to upholding the order of the sub-registrar, refusing registration of a sale deed. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.69 – Registration (Tamil Nadu r.55A – Vires of r. 55A – Refusal of the Sub-registrar to register the sale deed on the ground that the title of the vendor and the appellant not established – Correctness – Sub-Registrar refused to register sale deed executed in favour of the appellant – On
Subjects
Sale deedRegistration of sale deedTitle of the vendorRefusal to register sale deedPower to make rules under Registration ActNon‑traceable certificateAdjudicatory power of registering officerUltra vires
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 47 : 2025 INSC 462
K. Gopi
v.
The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025)
07 April 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of order by the Division Bench
of the High Court with regard to upholding the order of the
sub-registrar, refusing registration of a sale deed.
Headnotes†
Registration Act, 1908 – s.69 – Registration (Tamil Nadu
Amendment) Act, 2008 – ss.22-A, 22-B – Registration
Rules – r.55A – Vires of r. 55A – Refusal of the Sub-registrar
to register the sale deed on the ground that the title of the
vendor and the appellant not established – Correctness –
Sub-Registrar refused to register sale deed executed in
favour of the appellant – On direction by the Sub-Registrar
to reconsider, the Sub-Registrar again refused registration –
Writ petition thereagainst rejected – Writ appeal challenging
the rejection also dismissed – Interference:
Held: On plain reading of ss.22-A and 22-B, on the ground of
failure to produce documents of title of the vendor, registration
could not have been refused – 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 – r.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 – 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, the document must be registered –
* Author
48 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Rule making power u/s.69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule
that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act – r.55A(i)
is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act, thus, r.55
declared ultra vires the 1908 Act – Impugned judgment quashed
and set aside. [Paras 9,11-17]
List of Acts
Registration Act, 1908; Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act,
2008; Tamil Nadu Registration Rules.
List of Keywords
Sale deed; Registration of sale deed; Title of the vendor; Refusal
to register sale deed; Power to make rules under Registration
Act; Non-traceable certificate; Adjudicatory power of registering
officer.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3954 of
2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras at Chennai in WA No. 907 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mohd Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Ms. Qurratulain,
Ms. Shagun Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents:
P.S. Raman, Sr. Adv./AG, Sabarish Subramanian, B Vijay, Vishnu
Unnikrishnan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. This appeal takes an exception to the impugned judgment dated
20th March, 2024, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 49
K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
Judicature at Madras. On 02nd 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 dated 04th September, 2023,
and the District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider his
decision. By a letter dated 05th September, 2023, the Sub-Registrar
directed the appellant to resubmit the document along with proof of
the vendor’s title to transfer the property. On 03rd 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 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
50 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.”
3. By the order dated 14th 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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 51
K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
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 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
52 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the property found in the previous original deed produced
by the presentant as provided under 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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 53
K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
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 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:-
54 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(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.
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;
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 55
K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
(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
(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
56 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 57
K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
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 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.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Sale deed"Sign in to search