K. GOPI versus THE SUB-REGISTRAR & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 06-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 47 : 2025 INSC 462
K. Gopi 
v. 
The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025)
07 April 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of order by the Division Bench 
of the High Court with regard to upholding the order of the  
sub-registrar, refusing registration of a sale deed.
Headnotes†
Registration Act, 1908 – s.69 – Registration (Tamil Nadu 
Amendment) Act, 2008 – ss.22-A, 22-B – Registration 
Rules – r.55A – Vires of r. 55A – Refusal of the Sub-registrar 
to register the sale deed on the ground that the title of the 
vendor and the appellant not established – Correctness – 
Sub-Registrar refused to register sale deed executed in 
favour of the appellant – On direction by the Sub-Registrar 
to reconsider, the Sub-Registrar again refused registration – 
Writ petition thereagainst rejected – Writ appeal challenging 
the rejection also dismissed – Interference: 
Held: On plain reading of ss.22-A and 22-B, on the ground of 
failure to produce documents of title of the vendor, registration 
could not have been refused – No provision under the 1908 
Act confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a 
transfer document on the ground that the documents regarding 
the title of the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not 
established – r.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 – 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, the document must be registered – 
* Author
48
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Rule making power u/s.69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule 
that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act – r.55A(i) 
is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act, thus, r.55 
declared ultra vires the 1908 Act – Impugned judgment quashed 
and set aside. [Paras 9,11-17]
List of Acts
Registration Act, 1908; Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 
2008; Tamil Nadu Registration Rules.
List of Keywords
Sale deed; Registration of sale deed; Title of the vendor; Refusal 
to register sale deed; Power to make rules under Registration 
Act; Non-traceable certificate; Adjudicatory power of registering 
officer. 
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3954 of  
2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2024 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras at Chennai in WA No. 907 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mohd Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Ms. Qurratulain,  
Ms. Shagun Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents:
P.S. Raman, Sr. Adv./AG, Sabarish Subramanian, B Vijay, Vishnu 
Unnikrishnan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1.	
This appeal takes an exception to the impugned judgment dated 
20th March, 2024, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of 
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
49
K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.
Judicature at Madras. On 02nd September, 2022, a sale deed was 
executed by one Jayaraman Mudaliyar in favour of the appellant 
in respect of the property mentioned therein. The Sub-Registrar 
refused to register the sale deed. The appellant filed a writ petition 
to challenge the refusal. However, the writ petition was dismissed. 
Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal to the District Registrar 
against the Sub-Registrar’s order refusing to register the sale deed. 
The appeal was allowed by the order dated 04th September, 2023, 
and the District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider his 
decision. By a letter dated 05th September, 2023, the Sub-Registrar 
directed the appellant to resubmit the document along with proof of 
the vendor’s title to transfer the property. On 03rd October, 2023, the 
appellant again submitted the sale deed for registration. However, 
by the order passed on the same day, registration was refused. A 
writ petition was filed against the order of refusal. The writ petition 
was rejected. A writ appeal was preferred against the rejection of the 
writ petition by the lea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.