A Sub Registrar cannot adjudicate on title matters during document registration.

ORDER

The writ petitioner seeks to quash the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent in RFL/Melapalayam/12/2025, dated 11.02.2025, and to direct the respondent to register the settlement deed, dated 11.02.2025, executed by the petitioner in favour of his brother and release the same within the stipulated time.

2. Heard Mr.H.Arumugam for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. The petitioner claims that he had purchased undivided share measuring an extent of 55 cents out of a larger extent of 5.55 acres in Old S.No.591, T.S.No.10181, Ward BP, Block 34, Kulavanigarpuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, in the year 1992. Subsequently, he had mutated revenue records in his name. Out of natural love and affection for his brother, he executed a settlement deed, dated 11.02.2025. When the settlement deed was presented for registration before the respondent, the respondent rejected the same under the impugned order stating that the total extent available in that land is 5 acres, and as the entire 5 acres has already been sold out, the execution of the settlement deed is untenable. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.

4. The question of title to the property is not one within the jurisdiction of the respondent. The power of the respondent not to entertain a document is covered under Sections 22A, 22B of the Registration Act and Rules 55 and 56 of the Registration Rules. In fact, Rule 55 of the Registration Rules specifically states that it is not the duty of the Sub Registrar to go into the matters of title. His enquiry at the time of registration is confined to clauses (a) to (e) covered under that Rule.

5.This position is no longer res integra. It has been settled by the judgment of this Court in Subramani vs. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram reported in (2024)3 MLJ 588. The learned Judge, by following the Judgment in Satya Pal Anand vs. State of M.P , (2016)10 SCC 767 , held that a Sub Registrar, while registering a document, is not carrying out any quasi judicial act and is bound by the four corners of the legislation and the rules made therein.

6. The plea of Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader that the registration of this document might lead to multiple documents over the same property, does not hold water for the simple reason that if I concede the power to the Sub Registrar, then indirectly I will be permitting the Sub Registrar to conduct an enquiry into title.

7. In the light of the above clear and categorical verdict of this Court in Subramani vs. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram (cited supra) and in the light of the above discussion, I am unable to sustain the impugned order. Hence, the impugned refusal check slip of the respondent in RFL/Melapalayam/12/2025 dated 11.02.2025 is quashed. There shall be a direction to the respondent / Sub Registrar to register the settlement deed, dated 11.02.2025, executed by the petitioner in favour of his brother, within a period of two weeks from today.

8. Call the matter after three weeks for reporting compliance.

20.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To The Sub Registrar, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

skn

20.02.2025