Rule 55(i) Declared Unconstitutional

Registration is Procedural, Not Adjudicatory

[K. GOPI v. THE SUB-REGISTRAR & ORS. – 2025 INSC 462]

INTRODUCTION

In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 07th April, 2025 in K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors., declared Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules, as framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Act, 1908 (‘Act’), as invalid and inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and hence held it to be ultra vires. The Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oak and Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that a Registering Authority does not possess any adjudicatory power to examine or determine the title of the executant of a document. Consequently, the Registering Authority cannot refuse registration merely on the ground that title has not been established or proven. This observation was made while considering the validity of Rule 55A(i) which mandated that the Registering Authority ‘shall not register’ a document relating to immovable property unless the party presenting the document 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. The Court found that such a requirement effectively compelled the registering officer to assess ownership, which is beyond the scope of his statutory powers under Act.

On 02nd September 2022, a Sale Deed was executed by one Mr. Jayaraman Mudaliyar in favor of Appellant. However, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the Sale Deed. After a string of challenges to the refusal by the Sub-registrar to register the Sale Deed, the proceeding reached the Apex Court in a challenge to the order passed by the Division Bench dated 20th March 2024 (‘Impugned Order’).

The Impugned Order of the Hon’ble High Court upheld the Sub-Registrar’s refusal, relying on Rule 55A. As the Appellant had only challenged the Impugned Order, the Supreme Court on 14th November, 2024 permitted the Appellant to widen the scope of the Civil Appeal and incorporate the challenge to the validity of the Rule 55A(i) of Registration Rules.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

  1. The Appellant submitted that Sub-Registrar, under the scheme of the Act is not empowered to examine or adjudicate upon the title of the executant. His duty is confined to ensuring procedural compliance. Rule 55A(i) was framed under the power granted to the Inspector General under Section 69 the Act, which permitted the Inspector-General to make rules that were consistent with the Act. It was contended that Rule 55A(i), exceeds the scope of the rule-making power under the said section as Section 69 does not authorize the framing of Rules that confer adjudicatory powers or introduce substantive grounds for refusal of registration. Rule 55A(i) is not consistent with the Act and therefore, must be declared ultra vires.
  2. The State submitted that Rule 55A was framed to avoid registration of bogus transactions. It was argued that the Rule falls within the rule making power conferred by Section 69 of the Act and was intended to operationalize Section 22-A and Section 22-B, which were incorporated by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008 and therefore, must be seen in that context. Section 22-A and Section 22-B of the Act empowered the registering officer to refuse registration of the documents.

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT AND CONCLUSION:

  1. The Bench noted that Section 69 of the Act does not provide for framing Rules that confer powers on the Registering Authority to refuse registration of a document of transfer. Section 69 permits making of Rules solely for procedural purposes and not for imposing substantive conditions for registration. There is no provision under the Act that empowers any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document on the ground that the vendor’s title documents have not been produced, or that the vendor’s title has not been established.
  2. On a plain reading of Sections 22-A and 22-B, incorporated through the State amendment, the Bench found that none of these provisions empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration merely on the basis that executant’s title has not been proved.   
  3. It was affirmed that the Registering Officer should not be concerned with the title of the executant. Registering Officer does not have the adjudicatory power to determine whether the executant has any title. The Registering Officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. The Bench clarified that under the scheme of the Act, it is not the function of the Registering Officer to ascertain whether the vendor holds title to the property being transferred.
  4. The Bench observed that once 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.
  5. 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.
  6. The Bench held that Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and accordingly declared it ultra vires the Act.
  7. As a result, the Impugned Order was quashed and set-aside. The Appellant was permitted to lodge the Sale Deed for registration within one month from the date of the Judgment, subject to procedural compliance.

Author:

Aniketh Nair, Associate Partner

Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.