Supreme Court Strikes Down Rule Mandating Title Verification for Property Registration in Tamil Nadu.


07 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Property Registration >> Personal Law  

In a significant ruling with implications for property registration processes, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a judgment by the Madras High Court concerning Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908. The apex court declared the contentious rule, which mandated the production of prior title deeds for property registration, as ultra vires the principal Act.

The case originated from the refusal of a Sub-Registrar in Tamil Nadu to register a sale deed executed in September 2022 by one Jayaraman Mudaliyar in favor of the appellant. The Sub-Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's alleged failure to establish the vendor's title, citing Rule 55A of the Registration Rules.


 

 

The appellant's initial writ petition challenging this refusal was dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, an appeal to the District Registrar was successful, with a directive for reconsideration. However, the Sub-Registrar once again refused registration, leading to another unsuccessful writ petition and a subsequent dismissal of the writ appeal by the Madras High Court. The High Court, in its impugned judgment dated March 20, 2024, explicitly upheld the Sub-Registrar's action, stating that Rule 55A empowered the registering authority to refuse registration if the vendor's title and ownership were not established.

The Supreme Court, hearing the special leave petition, granted the appellant permission to amend the petition to specifically challenge the validity of Rule 55A(i).

The core argument presented by the appellant's counsel was that the Sub-Registrar's authority under the Registration Act, 1908, is limited to the procedural aspects of registration and does not extend to adjudicating the vendor's title. It was contended that Section 69 of the Act, which grants the Inspector General the power to frame rules, does not authorize the creation of rules allowing refusal of registration based on a lack of proven title. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the Act itself contains no such provision for refusing registration on title grounds, rendering Rule 55A(i) inconsistent and therefore invalid.

The Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu, representing the respondents, initially suggested that the state was prepared to proceed with the registration. While acknowledging the pending challenge to Rule 55A(i) in the High Court, he argued that the rule was framed to prevent the registration of fraudulent transactions and was within the scope of the rule-making power under Section 69, particularly in light of the state amendments introducing Sections 22-A and 22-B to the Act.

However, the Supreme Court meticulously examined Rule 55A(i) in conjunction with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the state amendments. Rule 55A(i) mandates the production of the previous original deed and an encumbrance certificate for registration. It also outlines conditions for registration in cases of ancestral property, lost deeds, and existing encumbrances.

The court highlighted that while Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Tamil Nadu amendment provide specific grounds for refusing registration – such as transfer of government or religious institution property without sanction, transfer of unapproved house sites (with exceptions), and registration of forged or legally prohibited documents – they do not empower the registering officer to refuse registration based on the non-production or non-establishment of the vendor's title.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the role of the registering officer is not to determine the validity of the title of the executing party. The court stated unequivocally that the registering authority lacks the adjudicatory power to decide on the executant's title. The court clarified that registration merely authenticates the execution of a document and transfers whatever rights, if any, the executant possesses. If the executant lacks title, the registration itself does not confer any.

Based on this analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that Rule 55A(i), by empowering the registering officer to refuse registration based on the non-production of title documents, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles and provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. Consequently, the court declared Rule 55A(i) to be ultra vires the Act.

In its final order, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgments of the Madras High Court and permitted the appellant to lodge the sale deed for registration within one month. The concerned registering officer was directed to proceed with the registration upon the completion of procedural formalities.

This judgment provides significant clarity on the scope of the registering officer's powers and underscores that their function is primarily ministerial, focused on the procedural aspects of registration rather than the substantive verification of title. The striking down of Rule 55A(i) is likely to streamline the registration process in Tamil Nadu and prevent undue delays caused by mandatory title verification at the registration stage.


  Registration Act, 1908