In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has struck down Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 by the State of Tamil Nadu, holding it to be ultra vires the parent Act. The Court held that a Sub-Registrar has no authority to refuse registration of a document on the ground that the executant has not produced title documents or established ownership over the property. The judgement was delivered by the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Background
The appeal arose out of the refusal by the Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed dated 2 September 2022, executed in favour of the appellant, K. Gopi, by one Jayaraman Mudaliyar. The appellant challenged the refusal through a writ petition, which was dismissed. Although an appeal before the District Registrar was allowed on 4 September 2023, directing reconsideration, the Sub-Registrar again refused registration on 3 October 2023. Subsequent writ proceedings and writ appeal were also dismissed by the High Court of Madras.
The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the refusal under Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, stating that the vendor’s title had not been established. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court and, with permission, amended the petition to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 55A(i).
Arguments
The appellant contended that the Registration Act, 1908 does not empower the Sub-Registrar to verify or adjudicate the title of the executant of a document. It was argued that Rule 55A(i), which allows refusal of registration for failure to produce title documents, is beyond the scope of rule-making power under Section 69 of the Act and inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Advocate General, submitted that Rule 55A was enacted to curb bogus transactions and is within the scope of Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the State. The State also argued that the challenge to the Rule’s validity was already pending before the High Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court examined Rule 55A, which requires the production of the previous title deed and an encumbrance certificate before registration. The Rule further mandates additional documents such as revenue records or non-traceable certificates where original deeds are unavailable.
The Court observed that neither Sections 22-A nor 22-B, introduced by the Tamil Nadu amendment, permit refusal of registration solely due to the absence of title documents. Section 69, which empowers the Inspector General to frame rules, also does not provide authority to confer adjudicatory powers upon Sub-Registrars.
Quoting from the judgment:
“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… in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all procedural compliances are made…”
The Court concluded that Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act and thus ultra vires:
“Rule 55A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act.”
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court that had dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and writ appeal on the basis of Rule 55A(i). The Court permitted the appellant to present the sale deed for registration within one month. It directed that, upon compliance with procedural requirements, the registering officer shall register the document.
“The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.”
Case: K. Gopi vs The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025 | Decided on April 7, 2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
