WA/2589/2026 of The Inspector General of Registration Vs M Arunvel Kumar on 8 October 2026

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ common order passed in the writ petitions dated 20.07.2026.

2. The Inspector General of Registration along with District Registrar (Administration) and Sub-Registrar, Thiruporur filed the present Intra-Court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. The first respondent instituted three writ petitions challenging the Refusal Check Slip issued by the Registering Officer and for a direction to remove the entries in the encumbrance certificate. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Appellants would mainly contend that one Mr.Kandasamy was the original owner of the subject property, who died on 30.05.2004. However, a fraudulent Power of Attorney has been executed on 01.02.2005 by way of impersonating the deceased owner Kandasamy and based on the said Power of Attorney, further sale deeds were registered. When the first respondent presented sale deeds for registration, Registering Officer found that the Power of Attorney was executed by impersonating the deceased owner Kandasamy. Thus, he issued Refusal Check Slip in respect of sale deed and settlement deed presented by the first respondent for registration. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:

5. Learned counsel for the first respondent would oppose by stating that first respondent is a bona fide purchaser. The alleged Power of Attorney was registered in February, 2005, and settlement deed and Power of Attorney by the 1st Respondent have been presented for registration in the year 2026. Therefore, the reason given by the Sub- Registrar in the Refusal Slip that the Power of Attorney is fraudulent is without any basis. He would further contend that the Sub-Registrar has not given any opportunity to place his submissions before issuing the Refusal Check Slip. Thus, the Writ Court had allowed the writ petitions.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded respondents 2 and 3, would submit that he purchased the subject property from Mr. Kandasamy and he was also cheated, since the sale consideration was not passed on to the real owner of the property, whose name is also Mr. Kandasamy. He has instituted three civil suits in O.S. Nos.57/2022, 89/2023 and 105/2023 and a criminal case also has been registered, which is pending. Therefore, the subsequent purchaser cannot claim any title over the property. DISCUSSIONS:

7. This Court has considered the submissions made by both parties to the lis.

8. Disputed facts regarding fraudulent registration of the document or identification of the owner of the property cannot be undertaken by the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power of judicial review cannot be exercised for conducting a roving enquiry touching upon the civil rights between the parties. Merely based on the statement in an affidavit or based on the Refusal Slip issued by the Registering Officer, High Court is not expected to form a final opinion that a presentant of a document has a legal right to register a document under the Registration Act. Such a perception would cause prejudice to the interest of other parties and in such circumstances, an enquiry as contemplated under the Registration Act is just and necessary. In the absence of any enquiry by the competent authorities and thereafter by the Civil Court, one cannot form an opinion regarding the civil right of a person in respect of immovable property. This exactly is the reason why the Parliament thought fit and contemplated procedures for dealing with the refusal for registration of document by the Registering Authority. The scheme under the Act is to be scrupulously followed to ensure that the documents are registered by following the procedures and after ascertaining the right of the presentant, who presented the document for registration.

9. Thus, it is necessary to consider the scheme under the Act to deal with the decisions taken by the Registering officer refusing registration in respect of documents presented. The issue has been considered on two occasions by the Division Bench of this Court:

(i) In the cases of E. Sumathi v. Sub-Registrar1 and Munusami v. The Sub Registrar and Others2, this Court elaborately dealt with the procedure to be followed and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as follows: “3. The refusal check slip issued by the Registering Authority per se would not provide cause for institution of writ proceedings.

4. This Court is of the considered view that Writ Court cannot decide disputed facts relating to civil rights. Power of judicial review of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure the processes through which a decision has been taken are in consonance with statutes and rules, but not the decision itself. Therefore, any findings touching upon civil rights in a writ order may cause prejudice to parties litigating civil rights and result in miscarriage of justice. Parties, at the first instance are expected

2026 MHC 4188.

2025 MHC 2588.

to exhaust statutory remedy contemplated under the Act and in the present case, the scheme contemplated under the Registration Act is to be scrupulously followed.

5. Documents presented for registration are scrutinized by Registering Authority, and a decision is taken either to register the document or refuse registration. A slip has been issued to presentant of the document. Refusal slip per se would not provide a cause to institute a writ proceeding, since an adjudication/inquiry is contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act before Registering Authority.

6. Part XII of Registration Act provides “Of Refusal to Register”. Section 71 of the Act enumerates “Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.—(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded. (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a

document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered”.

7. A cursory reading of above provision would indicate that Registering Authority shall make an order of refusal and record reasons in Book No.2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document. Any person on receipt of refusal slip is at liberty to submit explanations, along with documents, if any to the Registering Authority, who in turn has to conduct an inquiry by affording opportunity to the presentant/representative of document. After conducting inquiry, Registering Authority has to register the document or pass a reasoned order for refusal to register under Section 71 of the Registration Act.

8. If the document presented is refused and a reasoned order refusing to register is passed, the said order is appealable under Section 72 of the Registration Act. Section 72 contemplates “Appeal to Registrar from orders of Sub-Registrar refusing registration on ground other than denial of execution”.

9. Therefore, an aggrieved person may prefer an appeal under Section 72 before District Registrar to conduct an inquiry, by affording an opportunity to parties, and thereafter pass final orders, issuing directions to

Registering Authority to register the document or affirm refusal order passed by Registering Authority under Section 71 of the Act.

10. Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908, denotes “Suit in case of order of refusal by Registrar.—(1) Where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered, under Section 72 or a decree 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. (2) The provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 75 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to all documents presented for registration in accordance with any such decree, and, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the documents shall be receivable in evidence in such suit”.

11. Under Section 77 of the Act, an aggrieved person from and out of the orders passed by Registering Authority and Appellate Authority under Sections 71 and 72 respectively may institute a civil suit for appropriate relief before Civil Court within local limits of whose original jurisdiction the office in which document is sought to be registered. A suit for a decree directing document to be registered may be sought for. Scheme under Registration Act provides an effective mechanism for redressal of grievances against refusal of registration of a document by the Registering Authority under the Act. Exhausting alternate remedy contemplated under the Act is of paramount importance.

12. Factual findings by Registering Authority and Appellate Authority could be of greater assistance to Courts in exercising powers to render justice to litigants. The legislative intention in providing an alternate remedy under the Act need not be undermined by Courts by entertaining writ petitions for adjudication of disputed issues under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not desirable.

13. Pertinently, at the initial stage of issuance of a refusal slip by Registering Authority, civil rights or right of the presentant of a document for registration cannot be determined either by Registering Authority or by Writ Court. It is a preliminary stage, where they are bound to call for explanation from the presentant of document, along with supportive documents, if any, and an adjudicatory process is to be undertaken to arrive a final decision, enabling an aggrieved person to approach the Appellate Authority and thereafter Civil Court under Sections 72 and 77 of the Act respectively.

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 Others3, 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

2025 INSC 462.

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.

17. The petitioner is at liberty to submit his objections/explanations along with the documents if any to the Registering Authority enabling him to conduct an inquiry and pass recent order under Section 71 of the Act if the grievances of the petitioner are not redressed the petitioner may prefer an appeal under Section 72 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, still aggrieved he may file a civil suit under Section 77 of the Act.

18. At the outset, the scheme contemplated under the Registration Act is to be followed for the purpose of redressal of grievances and thus, the petitioner is at liberty to exhaust the remedy contemplated under the

Act.”

(ii) In the case of Mahalakshmi v. Inspector General of Registration and Others4, W.A. No. 3074 of 2026 dated 05.10.2026, the procedure to be adopted was once again reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court by elaborately considering the scheme under the Registration Act and the procedures contemplated for redressal of grievances in the event of the Registering Officer refusing to register the document presented for registration.

10. In respect of fraudulent documents, relying on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others5, and the Division Bench of this Court passed an order in the case of S.S Gayathri Bai vs The District Registrar and Others6, the Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand held as follows: “46. In our considered view, the decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi [Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 207 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1063] was dealing with an express provision, as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh and in particular with regard to the

2026 MHC 4215.

(2016) 10 SCC 767

2025: MHC 2177

registration of an extinguishment deed. In absence of such an express provision, in other State legislations, the Registering Officer would be governed by the provisions in the 1908 Act. Going by the said provisions, there is nothing to indicate that the Registering Officer is required to undertake a quasi~judicial enquiry regarding the veracity of the factual position stated in the document presented for registration or its legality, if the tenor of the document suggests that it requires to be registered. The validity of such registered document can, indeed, be put in issue before a court of competent jurisdiction.

47. In the present case, the document in question no doubt is termed as an extinguishment deed. However, in effect, it is manifestation of the decision of the Society to cancel the allotment of the subject plot given to its member due to non~fulfilment of the obligation by the member concerned. The subject document is linked to the decision of the Society to cancel the membership of the allottee of the plot given to him/her by the Housing Society. In other words, it is the decision of the Society, which the Society is entitled to exercise within the framework of the governing cooperative laws and the bye~laws which are binding on the members of the Society. The case

of Thota Ganga Laxmi [Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 207 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1063], besides the fact that it was dealing with an express provision contained in the statutory Rule, namely, Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules, 1960, was also not a case of a deed for cancellation of allotment of plot by the Housing Society. But, of a cancellation of the registered sale deed executed between private parties, which was sought to be cancelled unilaterally. Even for the latter reason the exposition in Thota Ganga Laxmi [Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 207 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1063] will have no application to the fact situation of the present case.

48. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, the High Court has justly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant with liberty to the appellant to pursue statutory remedy resorted to by him under the 1960 Act or by resorting to any other remedy as may be advised and permissible in law. All questions to be considered in those proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits.

49. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in the above terms with no order as to costs.”

11. The Division Bench made a finding in the case of S.S Gayathri Bai, based on Sathyabal Anand case cited surpa and the relevant portions read as under: “14. After the Judgment by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand case (cited supra), the State of Tamil Nadu brought an amendment and inserted Section 77A in the Registration Act, 1908. However, the said provision has been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Kathirvel and others Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, Chennai and others reported in (2024) 4 CTC 769 in W.P.Nos.10291 of 2022 etc., batch dated 02.08.2024, and no more in the statute book.

15. Section 86 of the Registration Act, 1908, provides protection to the Registering Officer in respect of the actions done in good faith. Section 86 denotes “Registering Officer not liable for thing bona fide or refused in his official capacity”. It states that “no registering officer shall be liable to any suit, claim or demand by reason of anything in good faith done or refused in his official capacity”. Therefore, the involvement of the Registering Authority relating to the allegations of fraud, cheating, impersonation ought to be proved beyond any pale of doubt before the competent forum and in the absence thereof, no action is permissible against the Registering Authority in view of the statutory protection provided under Section 86 for the official duties performed in good faith.

16. Referring to Rule 54 and Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, the said Rules contemplate the procedures to be followed before the Registration. Chapter XI with reference to Section 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 contemplates the procedures on admission and denial of execution of the documents. Rule 54 and Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, 1908 deal with “Enquiry before registration”. Therefore, the said Rules empower the Registering Authority to verify the document, identity etc., before the registration of documents. However, the said Rules are of no avail to the Appellant/Petitioner herein since the Sale Deed had been registered and thereafter the Appellant/Petitioner came to know that her property was alienated through alleged impersonation.

17. Once a document is presented before the Registering Authority, and the Authority if find any irregularities/illegalities, powers are vested under the Act for initiation of action.

18. Therefore,

in

normal circumstances, documents once registered and released by the Registering Authority, and if any person aggrieved from and out of such registration on account of impersonation, fraud etc., he has to approach the competent civil Court for cancellation of the documents/instruments or to prosecute the offenders under the criminal law by following the procedures as contemplated. The enquiry to be conducted by the Registering Authority or the District Registrar or the Inspector General of Registration as the case may be confined with reference to the procedures to be followed and in the context and scope of the Registration Act, 1908, Rules and certainly not beyond that.”

12. In recent times, fraudulent documents are frequently identified by the authorities. It is an offence and would result in larger repercussions, depriving the civil rights of persons concerned. Thus, state authorities are expected to be vigilant while registering the documents under the Act, identifying the presentant of the document during verification and the rights of the person for registering the documents are to be scrupulously done to avoid illegal and fraudulent registrations. Registration Act and Rules provide comprehensive procedures and the competent authorities are expected to scrupulously follow the procedures, so as to ensure that the documents are registered after verification and by ascertaining the right of persons. Registering authority, committing commission, omission, dereliction of duty, negligence or involving in corrupt practices are to be prosecuted and they must be subjected to departmental disciplinary proceedings. Head of the department has to monitor the activities of the registering authority to prevent registration of fraudulent and illegal documents. It is the duty of the State to protect the rights and interests of the citizens, namely the persons presenting documents for registration. In the event of failure on the part of the executives, resulting in infringement of right or financial loss, the State must be held responsible and accountable for such lapses, negligence or dereliction of duty. An aggrieved person in such circumstances is entitled to claim compensation from the State, and the State, in the event of paying compensation has to recover the same from the officials, who are involved in registration of such illegal and fraudulent documents.

13. Property right is a valuable constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is the duty mandated on the State to protect the property right of the citizen, since it is a constitutional right. Allowing fraudulent registration, corrupt practices in registration department or allowing illegal registration to happen, State must be held accountable and answerable to the citizen, who are registering documents under the Registration Act. APPLICATION TO PRESENT CASE:

14. In the present case, the facts placed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General would show that the Power of Attorney registered in the name of deceased Mr. Kandasamy has been identified as a fraudulent document.

15. In support of this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents 2 and 3, would also reiterate that three suits have been instituted and a criminal case has been registered, since he purchased the property based on the Power of Attorney and the sale consideration was passed on by way of a bank transfer in the name of one Mr. Kandasamy and the said Kandasamy was subsequently found to be a fraudulent person and not the actual owner of the property. Therefore, an investigation by the Police is essential to unearth the truth behind these allegations. It is unnecessary for the High Court to make factual findings in respect of such allegations of fraudulent registration of documents by way of impersonation or otherwise. That apart, three civil suits have been instituted and the Civil Court also has to conduct trial based on the original documents and the evidences available on record to find out the truth behind all these allegations.

16. Writ Court, setting aside the refusal slip merely based on certain facts may result in miscarriage of justice. In the event of transfer of an immovable property, it may infringe the property right of another person in the event of an illegality or fraud. Therefore, exhausting the alternate remedy contemplated under the Registration Act is of paramount importance for adjudication of disputed facts between the parties by the registering authority under section 71, appellate authority under section 72 and by the Civil Court under section 77 of the Act.

CONCLUSION:

17. In view of the facts placed before this Court and considering the legal position in the context of the Registration Act and the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the writ order impugned is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and legal principles settled. Consequently, the writ common order in WP.No.27598, 27600 and 27602 of 2026 dated 20.07.2026 is set aside.

18. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN J. GD WA No. 2589 of 2026 AND WA NO. 2593 OF 2026,WA NO. 2590 OF 2026 08-10-2026