In K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Others [2025 INSC 462], the Supreme Court has held that a Registering Authority under the Registration Act, 1908, is not empowered to refuse the registration of a sale deed on the ground that the executant has failed to produce prior title documents.
The Supreme Court observed that the function of a Registering Officer is procedural, not adjudicatory. The scope of the officer’s inquiry does not extend to determining the validity of the executant’s title to the property being conveyed. Consequently, the officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant and possesses no power to adjudicate upon it.
When the parties to the proposed instrument appear before the Registering Authority, admit to its execution, and all procedural formalities—including the payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration fees—are satisfied, the officer is duty-bound to register the document.
The Court reiterated the settled principle of property law that registration, in itself, does not create or confer title where none exists. The act of executing and registering a conveyance deed merely has the effect of transferring such right, title, and interest as the executant possesses at the time of execution.
If the executant holds no title to the property, the registered instrument cannot effectuate any transfer of title to the purchaser.
