Summary
A Sub-Registrar in Tamil Nadu refused to register a sale deed because the vendor had not produced proof of title, relying on Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which bars registration unless the presentant produces the previous original title deed and a recent encumbrance certificate. The Supreme Court held that under the Registration Act, 1908 the registering officer has no adjudicatory power over the executant's title and must register a document once execution is admitted and procedural requirements, stamp duty and fees are complied with; neither Section 69 nor the State-inserted Sections 22-A and 22-B authorise refusal for want of title documents. Rule 55A(i) was declared ultra vires the Act and the appellant was permitted to re-lodge the sale deed.
Issues
- Whether a registering officer under the Registration Act, 1908 may refuse to register a sale deed on the ground that the executant's title to the property has not been established or that the previous title deed has not been produced.
- Whether Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which conditions registration on production of the previous original deed and an encumbrance certificate, is within the rule-making power under Section 69 of the Act and consistent with the Act.
- Whether Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Act, as inserted by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008, support refusal of registration for want of proof of the vendor's title.
Provisions considered
- Rule 55A(i), Tamil Nadu Registration RulesThe rule requires the registering officer not to register a document relating to immovable property unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired the property and an encumbrance certificate obtained within ten days, with provisos for ancestral property, lost deeds and Government executants. In substance it confers power on the registering officer to verify the executant's title, which the Act does not permit; the rule was held inconsistent with the Act and ultra vires. (¶¶ 6, 7, 13, 14, 16)
- Section 69, Registration Act, 1908Section 69 empowers the Inspector General to make rules 'consistent with this Act' on the matters listed in clauses (a) to (j). None of those clauses provides for rules conferring power to refuse registration of a transfer document, and the rule-making power cannot in any event be used to make a rule inconsistent with the Act. (¶¶ 10, 11, 16)
- Sections 22-A and 22-B, Registration Act, 1908 (as amended by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008)Section 22-A mandates refusal of registration of transfers of specified categories of property (Government, religious institutions, Bhoodan, Wakf) without sanction, and of house-site conversions without planning permission; Section 22-B mandates refusal of forged documents, prohibited transactions, documents concerning attached property and notified documents. Neither provision permits refusal on the ground that the vendor's title documents are not produced or his title is not established. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 12)
Held
- On a plain reading of Sections 22-A and 22-B, which provide for mandatory refusal of registration only for the specific categories of documents listed in them, registration cannot be refused for failure to produce documents of the vendor's title. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12)
- None of clauses (a) to (j) of Section 69(1) authorises rules conferring power on the registering authority to refuse registration of a transfer document, and no provision of the 1908 Act empowers any authority to refuse registration because the vendor's title documents are not produced or his title is not established. (¶ 11)
- The registering officer is not concerned with the executant's title and has no adjudicatory power to decide it. Even if the executant has no title to the property, the officer cannot refuse to register the document if the procedural requirements are met and the stamp duty and registration fees are paid; once satisfied that the parties are present and admit execution, he must register. A registered document transfers only such rights as the executant possesses, and if he has none it effects no transfer. (¶ 15)
- Rule 55A(i), by making registration conditional on documents proving the executant's right to the property, effectively confers a power to verify title that the Act does not contemplate. Even assuming a rule-making power under Section 69, the rule is inconsistent with the Act and is therefore ultra vires; the power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a rule inconsistent with the Act. (¶¶ 13, 14, 16)
- Since the High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition in reliance on Rule 55A(i), which is invalid, the impugned judgments were quashed and the appellant permitted to lodge the sale deed afresh. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed. Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules declared ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908; the judgments of the Madras High Court quashed and set aside. The appellant permitted to lodge the sale deed for registration within one month, and the registering officer directed to register it on procedural compliances being made.