The Registering Authority cannot refuse document registration based solely on absent parent documents without adjudicating on property title.

ORDER

By consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. In view of the order that, this Court proposes to pass and also the limited relief that is sought to be granted, notice to the Respondents 8 to 11 is dispensed with.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 20.05.2025 whereby 3^rd respondent confirmed the refusal of registration by 4^th respondent wherein the settlement Deeds which were sought to be registered were refused registration on the premise that they have been presented without parent documents.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that they have presented the settlement deeds for registration on 21.04.2025 before the 4^th Respondent, the same was refused registration on the same day vide refusal check slips which came to be issued on the premise that the parent documents have not been produced and therefore, there is certain doubt over the title of the property. It is further submitted that they preferred an appeal as against the refusal check slips before the 3^rd respondent on 19.05.2025. However, the 3^rd respondent has confirmed the reasons assigned in the refusal check slips without assigning any reason whatsoever which shows that there is gross non-application of mind on the part of the 3^rd respondent in refusing to register the documents presented for registration.

4. In this regard, reliance was placed on decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of K.Gopi V. Sub-Registrar and others (2025 (2) CTC 777), wherein, it has been held that the Registering Authority does not have any adjudicating powers to decide the title of the property and merely because parent documents pertaining to title have not been presented cannot be the reason for refusal of registration. A relevant portion of the Judgement is extracted hereunder:-

“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 u