REAL ESTATE UPDATE
11 June, 2025
Issue No. 07/25-26
SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN TAMIL NADU REGISTRATION RULE WHICH REQUIRES REGISTRATION OFFICER TO CHECK PROPERTY TITLE
BACKGROUND
In K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors., the dispute arose from the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register a sale deed executed on 2nd September 2022 by one Jayaraman Mudaliyar in favour of the appellant, K. Gopi. The Sub-Registrar rejected the registration on the ground that the vendor’s title to the property had not been established. Gopi first approached the High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed. He then appealed to the District Registrar, who directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the decision. Despite this, the Sub-Registrar once again refused registration, demanding proof of the vendor’s title. A second writ petition and writ appeal were filed before the High Court, which upheld the Sub-Registrar’s decision, relying on Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules. This Rule mandated that the person presenting a document for registration must produce prior title documents and an Encumbrance Certificate. Gopi then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 55A(i), arguing that it was ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908 (“Registration Act”).
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and declared Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules ultra vires the Registration Act. The Court held that the Registration Act is a procedural law that governs the manner in which documents are to be registered, and it does not empower registering officers to verify or adjudicate the title of the executant. The rule-making power under Section 69 of the Registration Act allows for the framing of rules consistent with the Registration Act. However, Rule 55A(i) was found to be inconsistent with the scheme of the Registration Act for the following reasons:
- The Registration Act does not provide for refusal of registration on the ground that title has not been established.
- Sections 22-A and 22-B (inserted by State amendments) enumerate specific situations in which registration may be refused, such as transfer of government property, wakf property, or in cases involving forged documents or prohibited transactions. These provisions do not include lack of title as a ground for refusal.
- Rule 55A(i) imposed conditions requiring the production of prior title documents, encumbrance certificates, and other records, which in effect compelled the registering officer to examine ownership—something the Registration Act does not envisage.
The Court clarified that even if an executant lacks title, the registering authority cannot refuse to register the document if all procedural requirements are met. Importantly, the judgment reiterates that registration only reflects that a transaction has taken place it does not create or confer ownership. Ownership or title must stem from a valid source of law, such as inheritance, earlier conveyance, a court decree, or government grant, and not from the act of registration itself.
CONCLUSION
The judgement clarifies that registration is a procedural step, it records a transaction but does not itself create ownership if the seller had no legal title. The Court only struck down a rule that wrongly required Sub-Registrars to verify title, which is a job for civil courts—not registration offices.
The judgement does not affect genuine buyers who purchased property from rightful owners and registered their documents properly. Neither does it say that registered property transactions are invalid.
In short, registration is still essential and valid, but it must be backed by proper legal ownership. Buyers must conduct a title diligence of the property and should not simply rely on the argument that their sale agreement is registered to establish ownership. Those who have followed due process have nothing to worry about.
| Disclaimer: This newsletter is for general information only and not intended for any solicitation. Views expressed in this newsletter are as on date and not necessarily of V Law Partners (“VLaw”). While reasonable efforts have been taken to provide correct information, VLaw cannot and does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of the information provided in the newsletter. Readers are advised not to rely solely on this information when making any decision.
Suggestions: If you do not wish to receive our newsletters or have any comments or suggestions for us, please write to us at – admin@vlawpartners.com |