Date of the Judgment: April 07, 2025
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a state rule override the parent act? The Supreme Court in K. Gopi vs. The Sub-Registrar & Ors. addressed the validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Act, 1908. The core issue was whether this rule, which empowers the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of a sale deed if the vendor’s title is not established, is consistent with the Registration Act, 1908. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case originated from the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed executed by Jayaraman Mudaliyar in favor of the appellant, K. Gopi, on September 2, 2022. The Sub-Registrar’s refusal was based on the appellant’s failure to establish the vendor’s title, citing Rule 55A of the Registration Rules. K. Gopi challenged this refusal through a writ petition, which was initially dismissed. Subsequently, an appeal to the District Registrar resulted in a direction to the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the decision. However, the registration was again refused on October 3, 2023, leading to another unsuccessful writ petition and a subsequent writ appeal, which was also dismissed by the High Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 2, 2022 | Sale deed executed by Jayaraman Mudaliyar in favor of K. Gopi. |
| [Date not provided] | Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed. |
| [Date not provided] | K. Gopi filed a writ petition challenging the refusal. |
| [Date not provided] | Writ petition dismissed. |
| September 4, 2023 | District Registrar allowed the appeal and directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider. |
| September 5, 2023 | Sub-Registrar directed K. Gopi to resubmit the document with proof of vendor’s title. |
| October 3, 2023 | K. Gopi resubmitted the sale deed for registration; registration was again refused. |
| [Date not provided] | A writ petition was filed against the order of refusal. |
| [Date not provided] | The writ petition was rejected. |
| [Date not provided] | A writ appeal was preferred against the rejection of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. |
| March 20, 2024 | High Court dismissed the writ appeal. |
| November 14, 2024 | Supreme Court permitted K. Gopi to amend the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to challenge the validity of Rule 55A(i). |
| April 07, 2025 | Supreme Court delivered the judgment, invalidating Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register the sale deed led K. Gopi to file a writ petition challenging the decision, which was dismissed. An appeal to the District Registrar resulted in a direction for reconsideration, but the Sub-Registrar again refused registration. This led to a second writ petition, which was also rejected. The final writ appeal was dismissed by the High Court, which upheld the Sub-Registrar’s decision based on Rule 55A of the Registration Rules. The Supreme Court then heard the matter after K. Gopi was permitted to amend the petition to specifically challenge the validity of Rule 55A(i).
Legal Framework
The legal framework central to this case includes Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which empowers the Inspector General to make rules consistent with the Act. The validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules is questioned in light of this section. Additionally, Sections 22-A and 22-B, incorporated by the State of Tamil Nadu, outline specific instances where registration can be refused. These sections are crucial in determining whether Rule 55A(i) aligns with the overall legal structure.
Section 69 of the 1908 Act reads:
“69. Power of Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules .—(1) The Inspector General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the State Government and shall have power from time to time to make rules consistent with this Act…”
Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008 read:
“22-A Refusal to register certain documents – Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any of the following documents namely :- …”
“22-B. Refusal to register forged documents and other documents prohibited by law – Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register the following documents, namely: – …”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The Sub-Registrar is not empowered to question the title of the person executing the document.
- ✓ Section 69 of the 1908 Act does not authorize the Inspector General to frame rules allowing refusal of registration based on the vendor’s failure to prove title.
- ✓ Rule 55(A)(i) is ultra vires the 1908 Act because the Act contains no provision to refuse registration on the grounds that the vendor has not proven their title.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- ✓ The state is prepared to register the sale deed without going into the legal controversy.
- ✓ The validity challenge to Rule 55A(i) should not be entertained in this SLP, as it is already pending before the High Court.
- ✓ Rule 55A has been framed to prevent the registration of bogus transactions.
- ✓ The Rule is within the rule-making power conferred under Section 69 of the 1908 Act.
- ✓ Rule 55A gives effect to Sections 22-A and 22-B of the 1908 Act, which were incorporated by the State amendment.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules is inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules is inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. | The Court held that Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the Registration Act, 1908, as it empowers the registering officer to verify the title of the executant, which is beyond the scope of the Act. The Court noted that the registering officer’s function is primarily procedural and does not extend to adjudicating title. |
Authorities
The court considered the following:
- ✓ Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908: The court analyzed the scope of the rule-making power under this section to determine if Rule 55A(i) was a valid exercise of that power.
- ✓ Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008: The court examined these sections to see if Rule 55A(i) could be justified as giving effect to these provisions.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 69, Registration Act, 1908 | Supreme Court of India | Analyzed to determine if it provides the power to frame rules allowing refusal of registration based on the vendor’s failure to prove title. |
| Sections 22-A and 22-B, Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008 | Supreme Court of India | Examined to assess if Rule 55A(i) could be justified as giving effect to these provisions concerning refusal to register certain documents. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the Sub-Registrar cannot question the title of the person executing the document. | The Court agreed, stating that the registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant and has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. |
| Appellant’s submission that Rule 55(A)(i) is ultra vires the 1908 Act. | The Court agreed, holding that Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act and, therefore, invalid. |
| Respondents’ argument that Rule 55A is within the rule-making power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the rule-making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. |
| Respondents’ argument that Rule 55A gives effect to Sections 22-A and 22-B of the 1908 Act. | The Court found that Rule 55A goes beyond the scope of Sections 22-A and 22-B, which provide for mandatory refusal of registration only in specific categories, whereas Rule 55A empowers the registering officer to verify the title of the executant in all cases. |
What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistency of Rule 55A(i) with the Registration Act, 1908. The Court emphasized that the registering officer’s role is procedural and does not extend to adjudicating title. The rule-making power under Section 69 cannot be used to create rules that contradict the Act’s provisions.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistency with the Registration Act, 1908 | 60% |
| Registering officer’s role is procedural, not adjudicatory | 30% |
| Rule-making power cannot contradict the Act’s provisions | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (consideration of legal aspects) | 70% |
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Registering officers cannot refuse registration of a document solely on the ground that the vendor’s title has not been established.
- ✓ Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules, which allowed such refusal, has been declared invalid.
- ✓ The judgment reinforces the principle that rule-making power cannot be used to create rules that are inconsistent with the parent act.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the registering officer to register the sale deed upon procedural compliances being made by the appellant, K. Gopi, within one month from the date of the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a registering officer cannot refuse registration of a document solely on the ground that the vendor’s title has not been established. This judgment clarifies the scope of the registering officer’s powers and reinforces the principle that rule-making power cannot be used to create rules inconsistent with the parent act.
Conclusion
In K. Gopi vs. The Sub-Registrar & Ors., the Supreme Court invalidated Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules, holding that it is inconsistent with the Registration Act, 1908. The Court clarified that registering officers cannot refuse registration of a document solely because the vendor’s title has not been established, reinforcing the procedural nature of the registration process.