Back in 2022, the refusal of a sub-registrar to register a sales deed, who based the decision under provision of Rule 55 A (i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules led the Supreme Court, which was approached after the High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the sub-registrar’s decision, to come up with certain ifs and buts as regards property registrations. This is aimed at shedding light about many misconceptions that stemmed from diverse interpretations of the existing laws. On examining the validity of Rule 55A (i) vis-à-vis Registration Act 1908, the apex court found that it was inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act. The court made it clear that if the documents were executed legally and the executant’s identity was duly verified and proven, the registration process could be gone ahead. It contended that registration per se would not entitle legal ownership, which, once and for all, settled the long-held opinion that registration marked ownership. In its most recent ruling, the Supreme Court stated that registration alone does not validate ownership. This is a timely move as many people try to take advantage of the wrong interpretations and myriad loopholes that were between the lines.

Providing thorough clarity on this crucial issue that impacts millions of people, the apex court stated that getting ownership rights involves appropriate documentation and legal validation. It is believed in legal circles that this will impact property owners, realtors and legal practices. It asserted that for resolving property disputes and ownership rights, legal adjudication was imperative, including those who have acquired property through various means like inheritance and purchase, towards which the individuals must stay abreast of property laws. Registration at best can support an individual’s claim, but he or she cannot claim legal possession of the property. Meanwhile, it is only legitimate ownership that assures legal authority to use, manage, and transfer the property. Calling for a more transparent approach towards addressing this issue, the ruling, in a way, makes for a potential shift in the interpretation of property law, away from what has been presumed all these years.

A unique feature of the development is that once this legal framework comes into effect, the scope for misappropriations would be reduced gradually, especially when it comes to ascertaining land value with the sub-registrar office having no say on such matters. The onus is on the property owners to seek the help of legal professionals as regards establishing their ownership, which goes beyond mere registration. While declaring Rule 55A (i) as ultra vires and invalid, the Supreme Court clarified that a sub-registrar would have no adjudicatory power to verify or refuse registration of a document based on the title or ownership, which can only be settled and validated by courts. The new ruling is bound to call for a comprehensive reassessment of the property laws that are prevalent in the country. As an initiative that will usher in reforms that are long overdue, this development can take a step closer to achieving a more transparent legal infrastructure. Taken under any yardstick, one can get clarity on the existing distinctions between administrative registration and legal ownership, which, in the long run, can ensure fairness of property laws in the country.