The registering officer must register a property deed if procedural requirements are met, regardless of title disputes.

ORDER

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the refusal check slip RFL/Pennagaram/102/2025 dated 01.07.2025, wherein the sale deed dated 30.06.2025 which was sought to be registered was refused registration on the premise that the proceedings dated 09.06.2023 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri casts shadow/doubt over the title of the subject property in respect of 87 cents comprised in SF.No.137/2, Pennagaram Village and Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is the ancestral property of one Mr.Chinna Kuppusamy. The said Chinna Kuppusamy had entered into a partition with his sons and daughters vide partition deed dated 09.03.2015. The petitioner purchased the property in question measuring an extent of 1.00 acre from one of the sons of Mr.Chinna Kuppusamy vide sale deed dated 29.12.2021. Thereafter, when the petitioner presented a sale deed in respect of 87 cents from and out of 1.00 acre, the respondent refused to register the sale deed on the premise that petitioner's vendor has right only over 87 cents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent has made an enquiry into the title of the subject property which is in excess and beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent/Sub-Registrar and thus the impugned refusal check slip cannot be sustained.

5. In this regard, reliance was placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.Gopi V. Sub-Registrar and others (2025 SCC Online SC 740), wherein it is held as under:

“13. In contrast, Rule 55A empowers the registering officer to refuse registration unless the presentant produces the original deed by which the executant acquired rights over the subject property and an encumbrance certificate pertaining to the property, obtained within ten days from the date of presentation. If the original deed is not available due to its antiquity, the registration of the presented document will be refused unless the presenter produces a revenue record that evidences the executant's right over the subject property. If the original deed is lost, the document cannot be registered unless a non-traceable certificate is issued by the police department along with an advertisement published in the local newspaper, giving notice to the loss of the previous original deed.

14. In short, Rule 55A provides that unless documents are produced to prove that the executant has a right in respect of the property subject matter of the instrument, the registration of the same shall be refused. Thus, if a sale deed is presented for registration, documents must be produced to demonstrate that the executant has acquire ownership of the property. In a sense, power has been conferred on the registering officer to verify the title of the executant. Unless documents are produced evidencing title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall be refused.

15. The registering office is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has not 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 tittle to the property which he is seek