High Court · 2025

W.P.No.28572 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.08.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.No.28572 of 20251.Sarala2.K.Rajendran3.K.Ravi4.Geetha5.Tamilselvi .. Petitioners Vs.The Sub Registrar,Polur,Tiruvannamalai District. ... RespondentPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of respondent in RFL/Polur/96/2025 dated 04.07.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the document No.TP/225128180/2025 dated 04.07.2025.For Petitioners:M/s.S.GajalakshmiFor Respondent:Mr.U.BharanidharanSpecial Government PleaderO R D E RPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28572 of 2025By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of respondent in RFL/Polur/96/2025 dated 04.07.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the document No.TP/225128180/2025 dated 04.07.2025.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner intended to purchase an extent of 0.54.5 acres, that is 4/5th share of the total extent of 0.68 acres in Survey No.130/1 situated at Vasoor Village, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District for a sale consideration of Rs.3,45,500/- from one Kuppuswamy Naicker who is the father of the petitioners 2 to 5. The said Kuppusamy Naicker died on 30.01.1997, leaving behind petitioners 2 to 5 as his legal heirs. After his demise, petitioners 2 to 5 agreed to convey 4/5th undivided share out of the total 5 shares, to which Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28572 of 2025they are entitled and the remaining 1/5th share belongs to one Palani who is the son of the first wife of late Kuppuswamy Naicker. After verifying the title of the property, the 1st petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- to the writ petitioners 2 to 5 and presented the sale deed for registration on 04.07.2025. However, the same was returned registration vide refusal check slip dated 04.07.2025. The refusal check slip dated 04.07.2025, is as follows:Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28572 of 20254. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28572 of 2025that the Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 , wherein Rule 55A of Registration Rules was found to be ultra vires in the Registration Act, 1908, has held that enquiry into title of the executant property sought to be conveyed is beyond the realm of enquiry of the registration authorities. The impugned proceedings makes an enquiry into the title, thus stands vitiated. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28572 of 2025required 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 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.” (emphasis supplied)5. This Court finds merit in the above submissions of petitioner.6. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 is set Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28572 of 2025aside. It is open to the petitioners to re-present the sale deed for registration and on such representation the concerned authority shall register the sale deed if it is otherwise in order. If for any reason, registration of sale deed is sought to be refused, the respondent shall issue refusal slip/order assigning appropriate reasons.7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 06.08.2025NCC: Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order : Yes / NomsvToThe Sub Registrar,Polur,Tiruvannamalai District.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28572 of 2025MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.msvW.P.No.28572 of 202506.08.2025Page 8 of 8