WA/2422/2026 of The Sub Registrar Vs A.Nithiyanandam on 13 October 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam,J.) Under assail is Writ Order dated 15.07.2026 passed in W.P.No.27044 of 2026. The Sub Registrar, Chengalpattu preferred the present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Respondent herein filed Writ Petition, challenging the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by Registering Authority under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, refusing registration of Power of Attorney based on an unregistered "Will".

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant would mainly contend that Registering Authority found that the unregistered “Will” produced to establish civil rights is found to be not genuine. Thus, Registering Authority refused to register the Power of Attorney presented for registration and the said order has been passed by Registering Authority after conducting enquiry. Findings of Registering Authority would show that Presentor of the document has not established his right for registration of Power of Attorney. Writ Court adjudicated disputed facts, formed an opinion, and issued direction to Registering Authority to register the Power of Attorney. In the event of registering the said document, it may cause prejudice to the interest of other persons, who are claiming rights over property involved in the “Will”, which is found to be fake.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that there is no rival claim in respect of property. Registration of a “Will” is not compulsory under the Registration Act. Therefore, refusal for registration merely based on the unregistered Will is not in accordance with the provisions of Act. That apart, respondent presented Power of

Attorney for registration based on the “Will”, which would be sufficient to establish his right. Therefore, adjudication of civil right by Registering Authority is impermissible under Registration Act.

4. This Court has considered rival submissions made between parties to the lis on hand.

5. Legal principles established are that High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review is not expected to adjudicate disputed issues of civil nature. Such civil disputes are to be adjudicated in a trial nature proceedings based on original documents available on record. Registering Authority under Registration Act is empowered to verify genuineness of document presented for registration and rights of Presentor for registration of document presented. While exercising the power to verify the right of a person to register document, necessarily Registering Authority has to verify genuineness of document as well as the right of a person. Mere scrutinisation of document or raising certain suspicion about the document produced by Presentor of document would not constitute a ground to raise that Registering Authority has adjudicated the civil right or title. Any finding regarding ownership or title, if at all made in an order, passed under Section 71 of the Act, 1908, it is to be confined only to the extent of registering the document and such finding would not confer any vested right to person, claiming right over the property nor such findings can be construed as a declaration of title or ownership for the purpose of claiming rights.

6. Therefore, it is made clear that enquiry conducted by Registering Authority of Appellate Authority under Registration Act is only for the purpose of ascertaining the right of the Presentor of document for registration and during the course of enquiry, necessarily, Authorities have to consider the fact and make a finding for arriving at a conclusion. Finding or conclusion made in an administrative order passed under the Registration Act would not be a ground to claim title or ownership before Civil Court or before any other Forum.

7. In the context of powers of Registering Authority under Section 71 of the Registration Act and Appellate Authority under Section 72 of the Registration Act, the Scheme under Registration Act is to be necessarily considered by this Court. Registration of a document involves civil rights of parties. Any registration of document would lead to transfer of right, title, ownership, etc. Therefore, Authorities have been conferred with the power to examine document and ascertain the right of a person for registering document.

8. Let us look into the scheme under the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Part XII of the Act speaks about “refusal to register a document”. Section 71 denotes that the reasons for refusal to register are to be recorded. On receipt of refusal slip, which is the preliminary decision taken by the Registering Authority, Presentor of document is at liberty to submit objections to the registering authority against the refusal check slip. On receipt of any such representations / objections, Registering Authority is bound to conduct an enquiry by issuing notice to all the parties under Section 71 and thereafter pass a speaking order. The speaking order passed by the registering authority under Section 71 of the Act is appealable. Under Section 72 of the Act before the competent Appellate Authority. On receipt of appeal, the Appellate Authority is bound to conduct an enquiry, and by affording opportunity to the parties, pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law. An order under Section 72 of the Act would provide cause for institution of civil suit under Section 77 of the Act.

9. Section 77(1) of the Act stipulates that “Where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered, under section 72or section 76, any person claiming under such document, or his representative, assign or agent, may, within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal, institute in the civil Court, within the local limits of whose original jurisdiction is situate the office in which the document is sought to be registered, a suit for a decree directing the document to be registered in such office if it be duly presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of such decree”.

10. In the context of Sections 71, 72 and 77 of the Act, 1908, under Chapter XXIII, Rule 162 of the Registration Rules provides reason for refusal to register document. Rule 162 reiterates that when registration is refused, the reasons for refusal shall be at once recorded in Book 2. Facts of the present case would fall under Rule 162 (VII), which states about Presentor of document, who has no right to present it.

11. The very purpose and object of Section 77 of the Act, 1908, relegating the parties to approach the civil court is that the registering authority or the appellate authority is not empowered to adjudicate and decide the civil rights between the parties. High Court cannot decide the dispute of civil in nature nor issue a direction to register a document, in the event of Registering Authority forming an opinion that document produced by Presentor is not genuine or Presentor has not established his right to register document. Thus, disputed facts and its adjudication by conducting roving enquiry would fall beyond the realm of powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. The power of High Court under Article 226 is to ensure processes through which decision has been taken by competent Authority in consonance with Statute and Rules in force, but not the decision itself. In the event of any adjudication of dispute of civil nature, there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice or causing prejudice to any one of the parties. This exactly is the reason why Constitution Courts time and again reiterate that arms of powers of judicial review cannot be extended for adjudication of disputed facts, which are of civil nature. Therefore, refusal check slip resulted in a speaking order by Registering Authority under Section 71 of the Act, 1908 is appealable under Section 72 and the order passed under Section 72 is amenable to civil suit to be instituted before competent Civil Court of law. Under Section 77, Civil Court is competent to issue direction to Registering Authority to register document.

13. Intention of Parliament has been expressed in unequivocal terms that suit for decree, directing a document to be registered may be granted by competent Civil Court on adjudication of disputed facts, relating to civil rights. Therefore, Writ Petition filed challenging the refusal slip, which is a preliminary decision taken by Registering Authority is not maintainable nor amenable to writ jurisdiction.

14. In the present case, this Court is not going into the merits of the matter nor ascertaining civil right of respondent for registration of Power of Attorney. Such an adjudication must be done before Appellate Authority, since Registering Authority has already passed an order. After exhausting appeal remedy, an aggrieved person has to institute civil suit under Section 77 of the Act, 1908, seeking decree to register a document. Therefore, Writ Order issuing direction to register document is not in accordance with the Scheme under Registration Act. Therefore, granting liberty to respondent to file an appeal before competent Authority under Section 72 of the Act, 1908, the present Writ Appeal is to be considered.

15. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is allowed. The order of Writ Court dated 15.07.2026 made in W.P.No.27044 of 2026 is set aside. It is made clear that in the event of preferring appeal under Section 72 by respondent, Appellate Authority, without reference to the delay in filing appeal, shall entertain the same, conduct enquiry by affording opportunity to all parties and thereafter pass final order in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority may decide the issue uninfluenced by any of the observations made by Writ Court and the issues are to be adjudicated independently on its own merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN,J. AR W.A.No.2422 of 2026 13-10-2026