✦ High Court of India · 14 Jul 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 14 Jul 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

14 Jul 2025

Bench

Namakkal District.MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

Length

1,309 words

Acts & Sections

B of the Registration Act 1908 Constitution of India Registration Act 1908

W.P.No.21529 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQW.P.No.21529 of 20251.P.Arulraj, S/o.Perumal2.M.Ilayraja, S/o.Marimuthu3.M.Rajendiran, S/o.Marimuthu ... Petitioners Vs.1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Mallasamudhiram, Thiruchangodu Taluk, Namakkal District. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 2nd Respondent herein vide Refusal Order No.RFL/Mallasamudhiram/TP/219118380/2025 dated 09.05.2025, and quash the same consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 09.05.2025.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21529 of 2025For Petitioners : Mr.R.RameshFor Respondents : Mr.Abishek Murthy Government AdvocateORDERBy consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the refusal check slip (refusal order) dated 09.05.2025 whereby the Sale Deed dated 09.05.2025 was sought to be refused to register on the premise that sale is being made by the petitioners over the property, over which, they have no title in relation to certain extent. Relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-“nkw;go brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;F vz; W.P.No.12999 of 2025 ehs; 15/04/2025 kw;Wk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;F vz; W.P.No.13683 of 2025 ehs; 23/04/2025 Mizfspd; go jpUkjp/re;jpuh. j-bg/fht[e;jehlhh; vd;gtUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l bghJtpy; 4y; 2 g';F fpiua Mtzkhf gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ kw;Wk; jpUkjp/re;jpuh. f-bg/gHdpnty; vd;gtUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l bghJtpy; 4y; 3 g';F gpiHj;jpUj;jy; Mtzkhf gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt jw;nghJ Mtzjhuuhy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l brhj;jpy; 4y; 1 g';F brhj;jpid gjpt[ bra;a brhj;jpy; chpik ,y;yhj fhuzj;jpdhy; nkw;fz;l MtzkhdJ kWjspf;fg;gLfpwJ/”3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that enquiry over 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21529 of 2025the title is alien to the jurisdiction of the Registering Authority. He would further submit that the above reason for refusal is ill-founded and contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740/2025 (2) CTC 777”, wherein Rule 55-A of Registration Rules, 1908 was found to be ultra vires in the Registration Act, 1908. In Paragraph Nos.13 to 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-“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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21529 of 2025executant 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 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.”3.1. Citing the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the refusal check slip (refusal order) be quashed and for allowing this Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate would submit that 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21529 of 2025inquiry over the title may be an alien to the jurisdiction of the Registering Authority, however, there can be no two views about the fact and it is always open to the Registering Authority while registering the documents viz., Sale Deed et cetera, to conduct an inquiry in terms of Section 22-A and Section 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908. 4.1. Learned Government Advocate would further submit that if the Sale Deed dated 09.05.2025 is re-presented by the petitioners, it would be considered in the light of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740/2025 (2) CTC 777” and be registered, if it is otherwise in order. If, for any reason, the 2nd respondent is of the view that the registration ought to be refused, he would do so after assigning reasons thereof, which was acceded to by the learned counsel for the petitioners.5. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned refusal check slip (refusal order) issued/passed by the 2nd respondent dated 09.05.2025 is hereby set aside. It is open to the petitioners to re-present the Sale Deed dated 09.05.2025 for 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21529 of 2025registration and on such representation, the same would be registered if it is otherwise in order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740/2025 (2) CTC 777”, within a period of three weeks from the date of such representation. If for any reason, registration of Sale Deed dated 09.05.2025 is sought to be refused, the 2nd respondent shall issue refusal slip/order assigning appropriate reasons. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the matter and it is open to the 2nd respondent to consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.6. In the result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.14.07.2025 (2/2)Speaking (or) Non Speaking OrderNeutral Citation : Yes / Noarb6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21529 of 2025To1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Mallasamudhiram, Thiruchangodu Taluk, Namakkal District.MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21529 of 2025arbW.P.No.21529 of 202514.07.2025 (2/2)8/8

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under B of the Registration Act 1908