A registering officer’s role is limited to ensuring procedural compliance (e.g., stamp duty, execution admission) and not adjudicating title (Para 15). Rule 55A(i) exceeded the scope of Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which only permits rules consistent with the Act (Para 10-11). Sections 22-A and 22-B (Tamil Nadu Amendments) allowed refusal only in specific scenarios (e.g., forged documents, prohibited transactions), not for general title disputes (Para 8-9, 12).

Rule 55A(i) Struck Down: Declared inconsistent with the Registration Act, 1908, and invalid (Para 16). High Court Judgment Quashed: Impugned orders set aside (Para 17). Direction: Appellant permitted to re-present the sale deed for registration within one month (Para 18). Question of Law: Whether Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which empowered registering officers to refuse registration of documents due to unproven vendor title, was ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908? (Para 4, 6, 10-16).

Held: Rule 55A(i) was declared invalid as it contravened the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908, which does not confer adjudicatory powers on registering officers to examine title (Para 12, 15-16).

Major Acts and Provisions:

• Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908)

  • Section 69 – Rule-making power of the Inspector General.

  • Sections 22-A and 22-B – Tamil Nadu State Amendments permitting refusal of registration in specific cases.

• Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules – Mandated production of title documents for registration (Struck down).

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation: Appeal against Madras High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition challenging the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register a sale deed due to unproven vendor title (Para 1-2).

2. Remedy Sought: Appellant sought registration of the sale deed and challenged the validity of Rule 55A(i) (Para 3).

3. Reason for Filing: Sub-Registrar repeatedly refused registration citing Rule 55A(i), requiring proof of vendor’s title (Para 1-2).

4. Prior Decisions:

   • Writ petition and appeal dismissed by High Court, upholding Rule 55A(i) (Para 2).

   • Supreme Court permitted amendment to challenge the Rule’s validity (Para 3).

• Question of Law: Whether Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which empowered registering officers to refuse registration of documents due to unproven vendor title, was ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908? (Para 4, 6, 10-16).

Submissions:

• Appellant: Rule 55A(i) was ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, as neither Section 69 nor the Act authorized title verification (Para 4).

• Respondent (State):

  • Defended Rule 55A(i) as within Rule-making power under Section 69, aimed at preventing bogus transactions (Para 5).

  • Argued the challenge was academic since the State offered to register the deed (Para 5).

Subjects:

Ultra vires, Title verification, Registration Act 1908, Rule-making power, Adjudicatory authority, Procedural compliance.