WP/44595/2026 of RAMAKRISHNAN Vs THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION on 3 November 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed challenging the refusal check slip dated 13.10.2026, whereby Sale Deed dated 09.10.2026, presented in respect of property comprised in Survey No.883/1, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 14 cents, situated at Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, was refused registration on the premise that second respondent entertains a doubt with regard to petitioner's title.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that refusal check slip is primarily challenged on the ground that the reason assigned therein, viz., existence of a doubt regarding petitioner's title, is beyond the jurisdiction of Registering Authority. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi v. The Sub- Registrar and Others, reported in AIR 2025 SC 1800, wherein it was categorically held that jurisdiction of Registration Authority does not extend to examining or conducting an enquiry into the title of executant. Legal position in this regard is well settled. Relevant portions of the said judgment read as follows: “18. 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.

19. 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.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that the present Sale Deed pertains to an extent of 2.14 acres comprised in Survey No.883/1, Part, situated at Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. Originally, petitioner claims to have acquired title to a larger extent of 8.01 acres comprised in Survey No.883, situated at Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, which belonged to one Goopalliyappa @ Goopaligan and his family. It is stated that the said property was orally partitioned among three sons in respect of aforesaid survey number. He would submit that petitioner had purchased the lands under registered Sale Deeds bearing Document Nos.17117/2007, 17118/2007,

17119/2007 and 17120/2007 from respective vendors and presents owns an entire extent of 8.01 acres. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that out of total extent of 8.01 acres, an extent of 5.86 acres was subsequently sold by petitioner to one Gopal and four others under a Sale Deed registered as Document No.323/2008, while retaining remaining extent of 2.14 acres. It is further submitted that patta in respect of subject property also stands in the name of petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner had thereafter presented a Sale Deed for registration on 13.10.2026 in favour of Tamil Selvan Kandasamy in respect of the remaining extent of 2.14 acres. However, the same was refused registration by second respondent, referring to certain entries in the Encumbrance Certificate, including Document Nos.2249/1979, 3019/1979, 424/1983, 7253/2006 and 12759/2007. Learned counsel would contend that none of the aforesaid documents relate to the subject property and in any view have no bearing whatsoever on his right, title or interest over the subject property. Therefore, respondents cannot entertaining a doubt regarding petitioner's title on the basis of aforesaid entries is baseless, more importantly Registering Authority is not vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon questions of title.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents would, however, supplement the reasons by submitting that the doubt was entertained only in view of the fact that the subsequent purchasers in respect of extent of 5.86 acres had gifted certain portions of property to Government, in terms of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, for the purpose of formation of roads, OSR, etc. He would submit that, in any view, the writ petition is premature inasmuch as it is only a refusal check slip. Petitioner may submit his response/objections, along with relevant supporting documents, before second respondent. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21941 of 2025, dated 28.10.2025. Relevant observations are extracted hereunder: “13. Pertinently, at initial stage of issuance of a refusal slip by Registering Authority, civil rights or right of 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 presentant of document, along with supportive documents, if any, and an adjudicatory process is to be undertaken to arrive at a final decision, enabling an aggrieved person to approach Appellate Authority and thereafter Civil Court under Sections 72 and 77 of Act respectively.

14. Under Sections 71 and 72 of Registration Act, neither Registering Authority nor Appellate Authority is empowered to decide title, ownership, or civil rights between parties. Extent of inquiry is to be confined so as to find out whether document presented under Act can be registered or refused. Therefore,

Registering Authority is not empowered to go into merits of case and decide title, ownership, or civil rights between 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 purpose of determining civil rights between parties.

6. This Court, on consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel on either side, finds that there can be no two views on the settled legal position that Registering Authority is not vested with jurisdiction to go into the question of title while a Sale Deed is presented for registration. The said position stands conclusively settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi (supra). This Court also finds that there is a reference to certain Court orders in the refusal check slip. However, no particulars of such orders have been furnished therein, enabling petitioner to ascertain the nature and relevance of those proceedings.

7. In the circumstances, it is open to the respondents, if any such Court orders exist and are relevant to the subject property, to furnish copies of the same to petitioner. Petitioner shall thereafter re-present the Sale Deed along with his response/objections and relevant supporting documents. On such re- presentation, second respondent shall consider the response/objections of petitioner as well as objectors, if any, and proceed with registration of Sale

Deed, if it is otherwise in order and in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi (supra), particularly with regard to the limitations on the scope and extent of powers of Registering Authority. In the event of second respondent refusing to register the Sale Deed for any reason, the same shall be returned to petitioner by issuing a reasoned refusal order setting out the grounds therefor. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim or objections raised by either side. Second respondent shall consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.

8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. 03-11-2026 SHK To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, No. 100 Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate, Chennai 600 028.

2. The Sub Registrar, Bagalur, Hosur, Krishnagiri District 635 103.

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. SHK WP No. 44595 of 2026 03-11-2026