WA/3074/2026 of Mahalakshmi Vs The Inspector General of Registration on 12 October 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present intra court appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent has been filed challenging the writ order dated 10.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.3110 of 2026.

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant. She presented a document (settlement deed) for registration based on an unregistered 'Will'. On preliminary scrutiny of the document, the Sub Registrar refused to register the settlement deed and issued a refusal check slip, which came to be challenged by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the registering authority to issue notice to all Class I legal heirs of the testator, conduct an enquiry and thereafter take a decision, either to register the document or issue a speaking order of refusal within 30 days from the date of re-presentation. The enquiry shall be restricted to verifying whether the 'Will' dated 08.08.1993 was revoked and whether there is an order of a competent civil Court restraining reliance on the 'Will'. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that 'Will' is not a compulsorily registrable document under the Registration Act. Non- registration of a 'Will' would not be a ground to refuse registration and therefore the refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar is untenable. Regarding the direction issued by the writ Court, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the registering authority cannot conduct an enquiry regarding the civil rights of the parties. Therefore, the writ order impugned is infirm and to be set aside.

4. Learned Government Advocate would oppose by stating that, in respect of an unregistered ‘Will’, it is necessary that the registering authority conducts an enquiry to find out the genuinity of the same. In the event of routine registration, there is likelihood of causing prejudice to other Class-I legal heirs of the deceased executor of the ‘Will’ and therefore the learned Single Judge directed the registering authority to conduct an enquiry. Thus, the writ appeal is to be rejected.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

6. 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. Refusal check slip is a preliminary decision taken by the registering authority. Section 71(1) of the Act stipulates that the registering authority has to make necessary entries regarding “registration refused”. Therefore, on receipt of refusal slip, which is the preliminary decision taken by the registering authority, the presenter of the document is at liberty to submit objections to the registering authority against the refusal check slip. On receipt of any such representations / objections, the registering authority is bound to conduct an enquiry by issuing notice to all the parties under Section 71 and thereafter pass a speaking order.

7. 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.

8. The Scheme under the Act in unambiguous terms stipulates that the registering authority on refusal to register should provide cause for preferring an appeal and thereafter in a civil suit before the competent civil court. The very purpose and object of Section 77 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. In event of any doubt arises in respect of the document presented for registration, the ultimate remedy would be to approach the competent civil court to crystallise the civil rights between the parties. The High Court, in exercise of the powers of judicial review cannot adjudicate disputed facts of civil nature. This exactly is the reason why the Act by itself contemplates that adjudication of disputed issues before the civil court, which are of civil nature. High Court entertaining a writ petition adjudicating such civil nature issues and giving a finding would result in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the scheme under the Act is to be adopted for the purpose of relating the parties to approach the competent forum / court.

9. No doubt, if any procedural violations / mistakes are committed by the registering authority, then a writ would lie. In other words, during the course registering a document, certain procedural violations result in depriving the presenter of the document to register the document, then the High Court will be in a position to issue appropriate directions. However, if any doubt regarding title, ownership touching upon the civil rights of the parties is raised as a reason for refusal of registration, the then the scheme contemplated under Sections 71, 72 and 77 of the Act are to be scrupulously followed by an aggrieved person.

10. This principle has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Munusami -vs- The Sub Registrar and Others (2025/MHC/2588) and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder. “

14. Under Sections 71 and 72 of the Registration Act, neither the Registering Authority nor the Appellate Authority is empowered to decide title, ownership, or civil rights between the parties. Extent of inquiry is to be confined so as to find out whether document presented under the Act can be registered or to be refused. Therefore, Registering Authority is not empowered to go into merits of the case and decide title, ownership, or civil rights between the parties.

15. Any inquiry or findings made thereunder are to be confined only to an extent of registration of a document, and findings by Registering Authority or Appellate Authority cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose determining civil rights between the parties. The Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in K.Gopi vs. The Sub Registrar and Others (2025 INSC 462). Paragraph 15 of the judgment reads as under:

“15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no 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 title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.

16. Therefore, it is amply clear that the competent authorities under Registration Act have no jurisdiction to adjudicate title, ownership, or decide civil rights between parties. Any reference or findings made relating to a document presented for registration or supportive documents are considered only for the limited purpose of establishing a right to register document under the Registration Act. Any findings made by competent authority would not affect the rights of parties to establish their case independently before Civil Courts based on documents and evidences available on record.”

11. The practice of challenging a non-speaking “refusal slip” if any entertained, may cause infringement of civil rights of other persons who may or may not be before the High court. Thus, the High Court is expected to exercise restraint in issuing any direction to register a document merely setting aside the refusal check slip, which is not desirable. Any dispute touching upon the civil rights raised by the registering authority for not registering a document needs to be adjudicated in the manner contemplated under the Act.

12. In the writ order impugned, the learned Single Judge as rightly directing the registering authority to conduct an enquiry by issuing a notice to the other Class I legal heirs. After conducting the enquiry, the registering authority is bound to pass a speaking order. The final speaking order is appealable under Section 77 of the Act before the competent civil court of law.

13. Granting liberty to the appellant to exhaust the statutory remedy contemplated under the Registration Act, the writ order impugned dated 10.02.2026 made in W.P.No.3110 of 2026 stands confirmed and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 05-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KST To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai.

2. The Dist.Registrar, District Registrar office, Tindivanam.

3. The Sub Registrar Vallam Registration Office, Vallam.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN J. KST WA No. 3074 of 2026 05-10-2026