A Registering Officer cannot refuse registration of a deed based on conditions not prescribed by law if procedural requirements are fulfilled.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2025)

The petitioner’s father executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner, transferring 16.20 Ares of land in Re.Sy No.182/8, block 29 of Manikkal Village. After the execution, mutation was effected, and land tax was remitted. A condition was incorporated by the father in Ext. P1 settlement deed stating that in the event of any future transfer of the property, the petitioner shall obtain the signature of the mother as one of the parties in the deed to be executed. In 2012, the petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of the father, whereby 2.02 Ares of land was transferred back to the petitioner’s father, without including the signature of the mother in the deed. Subsequently, on 15.09.2025, the petitioner executed a settlement deed as Ext.P2 in respect of the property in Ext.P1, for an extent of 14.18 Ares of land in the name of her husband. The petitioner remitted Rs. 2,300/- as stamp duty and Rs.11,645/- as registration fees, and obtained the token also. When the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent on 15.09.2025 and presented Ext.P2 for registration, the 1^st respondent refused to register the document on the grounds that the condition incorporated in Ext.P1, to obtain the signature of the mother, was not complied with. Therefore, Ext.P3 objection was served on the petitioner. The petitioner now challenges Ext.P3 and prays for a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to register Ext.P2 deed at the earliest possible time.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 67 of the Registration Rules (Kerala), 1958, an enabling rule regarding the enquiry before registration. Rule 67 reads as follows:

“67. It forms no part of a Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document [except documents styled as marriage agreement] brought to him for registration or to attend any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:-

(a) That the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be;

(b) That the document is forged;

(c) That the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity;

(d) That the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration; or (e) That the executing party is minor or an idiot or a lunatic.”

Rule 191 of the Registration Rules (Kerala), 1958, also deals with the different situations whereby the registering authority can refuse the registration of a document.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Muhammed Kutty v. Sub Registrar (2024 KHC 7258) wherein the question that came up for consideration is whether a Registrar can refuse registration of a settlement deed for non production of prior title deed. It was held that the Registering Officer has no authority to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to question the right of the executant to execute the document or to insist for production of title deed or prior document of the property.

4. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of this Court in Nilambur Rubber Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala ( 2024 KHC 685) wherein it was held that the registration of the documents does not vouch the title in respect of the property being conveyed to the purchaser. Nor does the Sub Registrar, by his official act of registration, expressly or impliedly represents the conveyance of a valid title unto the purchaser. It is for the purchaser to satisfy the availability of a valid title of