A registering authority cannot refuse to register a deed based on the non-production of prior title documents; title determination is beyond its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P. No.5) refusing to register the deed for sale of the Petitioner on the ground of non-production of the original previous sale deed in respect of the properties covered under that deed.

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. It appears from the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 vide Annexure-5 passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P. No.5) that, the said O.P. No.5 did not register the deed for sale of the Petitioner assigning the reasons that, “though, the Petitioner produced the mutation R.o.R. of the properties covered under the deed for sale in his name showing as the owner of the same vide Khata No.163/140 (Annexure-1), but, he (Petitioner) did not produce the following documents:

(i) Original sale deed, through which, the mutation was allowed in his favour.

(ii) Non-production of the certified copy of the records of the mutation case No.2004/85.

(iii) Non-production of the order passed by the Revisional Authority under Section 15 of the OS & S Act, 1958 in his favour in respect of the case land.

For which, without refusing the registration of the deed for sale of the Petitioner, the O.P. No.5 allowed time to the Petitioner so as to enable him (Petitioner) to produce the aforesaid required documents by 16.08.2025, failing which, he (O.P. No.5) shall refuse the registration of the deed for sale and till then, the deed for sale (which was presented by the Petitioner on dated 17.04.2025) is kept pending before him (O.P. No.5) either for its registration or for refusal, as the case may be.

4. Now, the question arises, whether the Registering Officer i.e. Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P. No.5) is authorized under law not to register the deed for sale presented by the Petitioner on the ground of non-production of the previous documents on the basis of which, the R.o.R. of the proposed land for sale vide Khata No.163/140 was prepared in the name of the Petitioner?

5. On this Aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and others Vrs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1989 (2) Civ.C.C. 172 (Patna) in Para No.3 that, It is not for the registering authority to enquire and ascertain the title of the properties in a deed for sale to its own satisfaction. Under the provisions of the T.P. Act, 1888, if the transferor does no have any title or has an imperfect title in the property, the transferee on transfer will either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is not of any concern to the registering authority.

(ii) In a case between Ranjeet Singh and another Vrs. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ambala and another reported in 2012 (3) Civ.C.C. (P & H) 736 that, want of ownership and title of vendor—Jurisdiction of registering authority—It does not fall in the domain of registering authority to embark into question of ownership, when document is presented for registration.

(iii) In a case between Daitari Jena Vrs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2025 (I) OLR 887 in Para No.7 that, Section 34(3) of the Registration Act do not authorizes the registering officer to enquire into the consequential legal effect as well as merit of the deed in question presented for registration and to refuse its registration expressing opinion on its merit..

(iv) In a ca