Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?

No.

The act of registration cannot be equated with service of notice upon the State.

  • The Sub-Registrar performs the act of registration in a purely ministerial and administrative capacity.
  • It is not a quasi-judicial function, either.
  • Registration is a statutory function. It is strictly governed by the provisions of the enactment and the rules framed thereunder.
  • In discharging this function, the Sub-Registrar does not represent anybody, including the State.
  • He exercises no adjudicatory power.
  • The Sub-Registrar has no discretion beyond what is expressly conferred by statute.
  • Neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate or confer any such duty or authority on the Sub Registrar.

For the above, it cannot be said – the Sub Registrar receives or accepts notice on behalf of the Government.

Owner must have Failed to take care to know Notorious facts 

To invite adverse possession, the owner must have failed to take care to know notorious facts,  despite the knowledge of the acts under the colour of a hostile title.

  • “7…Consonant with this principle the commencement of adverse possession, in favour of a person implies that the person is in actual possession, at the time, with a notorious hostile claim of exclusive title, to repel which, the true owner would then be in a position to maintain an action. It would follow that whatever may be the animus or intention of a person wanting to acquire title by adverse possession his adverse possession cannot commence until he obtains actual possession with the requisite animus.” (Quoted in: M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1)

“Knowledge” as to Adverse Possession

The “knowledge” required to establish adverse possession is that which is brought to the true owner through the claimant’s open and hostile assertion of title. The burden of proving such knowledge lies squarely on the person asserting adverse possession.

Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729, has held as under:

  • “60. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e. adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. ….. Trespasser’s long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession…”

Does Regin. of a Deed Confer Knowledge as to Adv. Possession to Government

Where the claim is directed against the Government, the claimant must establish that his open and hostile assertion of title effectively brought such knowledge to the competent authority having control, custody, and administrative responsibility over the property on behalf of the State. Mere or imputed personal knowledge of Ministers, Government Pleaders, or the Sub-Registrar, acquired in the course of official functions such as the registration of a document, does not satisfy this requirement; nor does registration—being a ministerial act—amount to notice to the Government in law.

S. 3 TP Act – Registration is not Notice to the Public

Registration does not amount to notice to the public at large. It is clear from Section 3, Explanation I of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

  • Registration operates as constructive notice only to persons who subsequently acquire
    • .(i) the property, or
    • (ii) or any interest in any part, share, or interest in that property.
  • It is not “notice to the Government”. The doctrine of constructive notice is statutorily confined; it cannot be expanded by any implication.

Sub Registrar cannot Refuse Registration on the ground, No Title

In K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar our Apex Court (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 462: Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.; 7. 4. 2025) held that the registering officer cannot refuse to register a document, on the ground that the vendor has not established his title and ownership.

SC declared TN Rules, ultra vires the 1908 Act

The Supreme Court declared Rule 55A of the Registration Rules under the Registration Act, 1908,  framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, as ultra vires the 1908 Act. This rule provided that the Sub-Registrar waswas entitled to refuse the registration of the sale deed on the ground that the vendor has not established his title and ownership.

The court said 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, assuming that there is a power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act to frame the Rules, Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) will have to be declared ultra vires the 1908 Act. The rulemaking power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act.”

Earlier Decision of the Apex Court

Earlier, the Supreme Court, in Satya Pal Anand v. State of MP, AIR 2016 SC 4995; 2016-10 SCC 767, held as under:

  • “He is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document as such. The examination to be done by him is incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the Act of 1908. In the case of Park View Enterprises (Park View Enterprises v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1990 Mad 251) it has been observed that the function of the Registering Officer is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. He cannot decide as to whether a document presented for registration is executed by person having title, as mentioned in the instrument.”

Note: No Rules had to be looked into in this case (as one came for consideration in K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar).

Registering officer is not permitted to inquire into validity of the Deed

The same view (in Satya Pal Anand v. State of MP) was taken in State of Gujarat v. Rajiv Maheshkumar Mehta (09 Aug 2016, Guj.), holding that the registering officer is not permitted to undertake an inquiry into the legality and validity of the title and document; and that the registering officer is not empowered to act like a judicial officer. The Gujarat High Court referred to the following decisions:

  • (1) Krishna Gopal Kataria v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 P & H 328. That powers of Registrar are clearly defined and demarcated and any instruction by the State Government to the Registrar and in turn to the Sub-Registrar not to register sale deeds or lease deeds in respect of properties belonging to religious/charitable institutions in absence of any statutory provision was held to be illegal. It was further held that Act 1908 is a complete code of deeds.
  • (2) Bihar Deed Writers Association v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 Pat 144, in which, it was held that it is not for registering authority to ascertain title to its own satisfaction and in the fact of that case absence of any declaration by the parties in respect of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1961 and refusal to register the sale deed was held bad in law.
  •  (3) E. Eshaque v. Sub-Registrar, Kozhikode, AIR 2002 Ker 128 whereby it was held that registering authorities is not required to satisfy title, possession or encumbrances in respect of property sought to be registered. In this case also reliance was placed by the High Court of Kerala on the decision in the case of Bihar Deed Writers Association v. State of Bihar.
  • (4) State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77 In the above case Section 22A inserted by Registration Amendment Act 16 of 1976 whereby documents to be registered if found opposed to public policy and notifications issued in this regard was held to be unconstitutional and secondly notifications issued thereunder where quashed and set aside. In the above decision even power of attorney was also interpreted in light of Chapter X of Contract Act, 1872.
  • (5) Captain Dr. R. Bellie v. Sub-Registrar, Sulur, AIR 2007 Mad 331. It was the case when registration of document was denied on the ground that it was opposed to public policy and relying on decision in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, AIR 2005 SC 3401 provision made vide Government Order No. 150 pertaining to commercial taxes was set aside and provisions of Section 22A inserted by registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1994) was held to be unconstitutional.
  • (6) Pandurangan v. Sub-Registrar, Reddiar-palayam Pondicherry, AIR 2007 Mad 159, in which it was held that withholding of registration of document is not permissible based on executive instructions in absence of any statutory rule and that registering authority has no power to make inquiry relating to title. In this case even amendment made to Rule 54 framed in exercise of powers under Section 69 of the Act 1908, by which, scope of power conferred upon registering authority under Sections 34 and 35 of the Act came to be enlarged and was held to be illegal by holding that statutory rules cannot override express provisions of the statute and execution instructions cannot override either of the two.
  • (7) Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, 2009 (3) GLH 533 whereby the Apex Court held that holder of power of attorney himself is executant of the document to be registered is entitled to present such document before registering officer for registration and in such a case namely where a deed is executed by a agent for principal and the same agent signs, appears and presents the deed or admits an execution before Registering Officer, it is not a case of presentation under Section 32(c) of the Act 1908. In other words, only in cases where the person signing the document cannot present the document before the registering officer and gives a power of attorney to another to present the document that the provisions of Section 33 get attracted. It is only in such a case, that the said power of attorney has to be necessarily executed and authenticated in the manner provided under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act 1908.
  • (8) Shakuntala Devi v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2010 Jha 56 keeping in mind Sections 34 and 35 of the Act 1908, whereby it is held that registering officer can only see whether document is duly stamped to valuation given and that he has no jurisdiction to withhold or refuse registration of sale deed on the ground that vendor has no title.

No provision empowers Sub Registrar to satisfy himself as to the title

In Eshaque v. Sub Registrar, 2002 (1) KLT 330, it is held that there is no provision which empowers the Sub Registrar to satisfy himself as to the title; and that the Sub Registrar is not justified in requiring the executant of the deed to produce a possession certificate from the competent authority to establish possession of property. It is followed in the following decisions:

  • Sumathi v. State of Kerala, ILR 2018-4 Ker 956; 2018-5 KHC 586; 2018-4 KLT 959
  • Nilambur Rubber Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2024-4 KLT 642 (Held- registration of a sale deed cannot be refused, on the premise that the executant has no ownership, but only possession over the property conveyed.)
  • Pankaj Kumar Harlalka v. State of Jharkhand, 2002-3 JCR 152; 2005-2 JLJR 118.

High Courts were unanimous on this issue

In Makhanbala Chakraborty v. Pranab Kanti Basu, 26 Sep 2014, the Tripura High Court observed that the High Courts seem to be unanimous on this issue that the Registrar/Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a conveyance entered into by a squatter, since the Registrar does not have the authority to question the title of the transferor. The following decisions were referred to:

  • Bihar Deed Writers Association v. State of Bihar: AIR 1989 Pat 144(DB) (para 3);
  • Hari Singh v. Sub-Registrar, : (1998) 120 PLR 787 (DB) (paras 8 to 11),
  • K. Eshaque v. Sub-Registrar, : AIR 2002 Ker 128 (paras 7 to 9);
  • Gopal v. District Collector, Bhandara, (2003) 3 Mah LJ 883 (para 11);
  • Yadla Ramesh Naidu v. Sub-Registrar, : (2009) 1 ALD 337 (paras 22 to 25);
  • Ashwini Ashok Khirsagar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 3 AIR Bom R (NOC 318) 90 (paras 4 to 8);
  • Deep Apartment v. State of Maharashtra, : (2012) 6 Bom LR 3782; (paras 6 to 9);
  • Gurjeet Singh Madaan v. Sub-Registrar, CS (OS) 340/2013, decided on 26-09-2013 (Delhi High Court, paras 23 to 25).

End Notes

Effect of Fraudulent Regn. of Deed on Govt. Property, and Mutation

If the deed is fraudulently registered with respect to the government property (shown as private property), and mutation entries were caused to be made, they will not ripen into adverse possession against the Government, for the following reasons:

  • 1. The ingredients of adverse possession will not be satisfied – such as: OPEN, actual, and NOTORIOUS (visible, not secret) exclusive possession, hostile to the true owner (Government). A sham/void/fraudulent transaction will not satisfy these ingredients. (See: Madhavrao Waman Saundal Gekar v. Raghunath Venkatesh Desh Pande, AIR 1923 PC 205; Lakshmi Dutt v. Gopal Dutt, AIR 1974 (All) 316; Radhabai and Ram Chandra Konher v. Anantray Bhagvant Despande, ILR (1885) 9 Bom 198).
  • 2. Fraudulent execution of deeds between persons having no title at all over Government land can use it as a title deed alone. That is, the claimant does not admit the title of the ‘true owner’.
  • 3. Mutation will not create or extinguish title.
  • 4. Courts must be cautious to apply adverse possession where public property is sought to be grabbed.
  • 5. Fraud vitiates everything. It cannot be used as the beginning of adverse possession. One cannot base adverse possession on a fraudulent foundation.
  • 6. Courts strictly scrutinise adverse possession in cases involving public property.

In Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan, AIR 1976 SC 1485, it is held as to the presumption of correctness on revenue-records as under:

  • “It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.”
Read Book No. 5
•  Adverse Possession: A Concise Overview
•  What is Adverse Possession in Indian Law?
•  How to Plead Adverse Possession? 
•  Declaration & Recovery: Art. 65, not Art. 58 Governs
•   Adverse Possession: Dispossession and Knowledge
•   Adverse Possession: Admission of Title of Other Party
•   Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
•   Does ‘Abandonment’ a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
•   Fraudulent Registration of Deed: No Adverse Possession
•   Does 12 Years’ Unobstructed Possession Precede the Suit?
•   Prescriptive Rights – Is it Inchoate until Upheld by Court
•   Sec. 27, Limitation Act: Right to Declaration and Recovery
•   ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
•   Possession: a Substantive Right Protected in Indian Law
•   ‘Possession is Good Against All But the True Owner’
•   When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’
•   Can a Tenant Claim Adverse Possession
•   Adverse Possession Against Government
•   Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?
•   Government of Kerala v. Joseph
•   Adverse Possession: UK and US Law and Classic Decisions

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession: 

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment