SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, K.RAJASEKAR, JJ
Marithai – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Sub Registration Office, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District. – Respondent
Writ Appeal|W.A(MD)No.1422 of 2025|Writ Petition|W.P(MD)No.5643 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Balamurugan
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Sasi Kumar Additional Government Pleader

A registering authority must register documents if procedural compliance is met, irrespective of the title held by the executant.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the refusal of a registering authority to register a deed of release presented by the appellant, which was challenged in earlier proceedings. The court found that the refusal was not justified as all procedural requirements were met and referenced a relevant Supreme Court ruling stating that a registering authority lacks the jurisdiction to evaluate the title of the executant. Consequently, the order of the learned single judge was overturned, permitting the re-presentation of the document for registration. The Writ Appeal was allowed.

Table of Content
1. the presentation of a deed of release was wrongly refused by the respondent. (Para 2)
2. the court affirmed the lack of jurisdiction for the registrar to refuse registration based on title. (Para 3 , 4)
3. the court set aside the prior order, allowing registration of the document. (Para 5 , 6)

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The appellant herein presented a deed of release dated 13.02.2025 before the respondent. The respondent declined to entertain the document and issued refusal check slip dated 20.02.2025. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.5683 of 2025. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and called upon the appellant to move the jurisdictional civil Court for relief. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader pointed out that as per the encumbrance register, the property in question belonged to one Udayammai Athal and that she settled the same in favour of one Vellaipandian and Pitchai Thai and that there were no subsequent transactions in the official land records. The reason assigned by the registering authority appears to be sound. But two facts stare at us. Firstly, there is no rival claim. Secondly, the appellant's father Senthurpandian's name is found in the A-Register. Patta also stands in his name. When the patta stands in the names of the appellant's family, it is not open to the registering authority to decline to entertain the document.

4.Our attention is also drawn to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 (K.Gopi Vs Sub-

Registrar & Others). Paragraph 15 of the said order is as follows:

“15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that 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 as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.”

5.In this view of the matter, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The refusal check slip is also set aside. The petitioner is permitted to re- present the document. It shall be registered by the respondent subject to fulfilment of the other usual formalities.

6.This Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top