What are the special duties and controlling powers of the Registrar under the Indian Registration Act, 1908?

Special Duties and Controlling Powers of the Registrar

Unlike a Sub-Registrar, whose function is confined to admitting or refusing documents presented directly to him, the Registrar occupies a supervisory tier under the Registration Act, 1908 — combining his own duties as a registering officer with special controlling and appellate powers over Sub-Registrars, most notably the power of superintendence under Section 68 and the special procedure for denied executions under Part XII.

Superintendence and Control Over Sub-Registrars — Section 68

Section 68(1) places every Sub-Registrar under the superintendence and control of the Registrar of the district in which the Sub-Registrar's office is situated. Section 68(2) empowers the Registrar to issue, on complaint or otherwise, any order consistent with the Act that he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of a subordinate Sub-Registrar, or in respect of rectifying an error concerning the book or office in which a document has been registered.

This power, however, is purely administrative and supervisory — it is not a power of adjudication, and does not extend to canceling a registration once completed. In Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., the Supreme Court held decisively that Section 68 does not empower registering officers to cancel already registered instruments; this position has since been reaffirmed by the Madras High Court in Rajasulochana v. Inspector General, which struck down circulars purporting to authorise cancellation as ultra vires. Before a Registrar can invoke Section 68(2), it must also be shown that the act or omission complained of belongs to a Sub-Registrar actually subordinate to him — a Registrar has no jurisdiction to correct an error in a sub-registry outside his own district, as held in Nurul v. Charles.

Special Duty When Execution Is Denied — Part XII

Where a Sub-Registrar refuses to register a document because the person purporting to have executed it denies execution, the second proviso to Section 35(3) requires the Sub-Registrar to refer the matter to the Registrar, who must then follow the special procedure prescribed under Part XII of the Act (Sections 73 to 77). This is one of the Registrar's most distinctive statutory duties — he is called upon to hold an inquiry into the fact of execution itself, examine the parties, and decide whether the document should be registered, effectively performing a quasi-adjudicatory role that goes beyond the purely administrative function exercised by a Sub-Registrar.

Appellate Function Under Section 72

Section 72 confers on the Registrar an appellate power: where a Sub-Registrar refuses to register a document (other than on the ground of denial of execution, which is governed separately by Sections 73-77), the aggrieved party may appeal to the Registrar to whom the Sub-Registrar is subordinate. If the Registrar is satisfied that the document ought to be registered, he directs the Sub-Registrar to register it. If, however, the Registrar himself refuses registration under Section 71, or upholds the Sub-Registrar's refusal on appeal, the aggrieved party's only recourse thereafter is a civil suit under Section 77.

Courts have clarified that where a Registrar, instead of passing a formal order of refusal, merely declines to revise his own earlier decision, that order is nonetheless treated as one of refusal under Section 76(1)(b), entitling the aggrieved party to institute a suit under Section 77 — as held in the Bombay case of Fattechand v. Umaji and followed in a similar Madras decision.

Duty to Inquire, Not to Adjudicate Title

Even in his special capacity under Part XII, the Registrar's inquiry is confined to whether the document was genuinely executed — it does not extend to an inquiry into the vendor's or executant's title to the property. The Supreme Court's reasoning in Satya Pal Anand and the consistent line of High Court authority (including Bihar Deed Writers Association v. State of Bihar and Chairman/Secretary, Deep Apartment CHS Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra) confirms that neither the Sub-Registrar nor the Registrar performs any quasi-judicial function when it comes to title; such disputes must be resolved by a civil court.

Power to Condone Delay — Sections 25 and 34

The Registrar exercises a special discretionary power to condone delay in presentation of a document under Section 25, and delay in appearance of executants under the proviso to Section 34, in cases of urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the proper registration fee. This discretion, while vested in a public authority rather than a court, is nonetheless treated as virtually mandatory once genuine grounds are established, following the Supreme Court's reasoning on the exercise of statutory discretion by public authorities in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji.

Power to Remit Fines — Section 70

Distinct from the Registrar's own powers, Section 70 vests in the Inspector-General of Registration — who exercises superintendence over the Registrar himself — the discretion to wholly or partly remit the difference between any fine levied under Section 25 or Section 34 and the amount of the proper registration fee. This illustrates the layered hierarchy of control under the Act: Sub-Registrar, subject to the Registrar; Registrar, subject to the Inspector-General.

Limits on the Registrar's Controlling Power

The judicial trend has firmly confined the Registrar's controlling powers to what the Act expressly authorises. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Krishna v. State of Punjab held that the Registration Act is a complete code, and neither the State Government nor the Registrar can direct Sub-Registrars to refuse registration on grounds outside Sections 21, 23, 25, 28, 32, and 35. Similarly, courts have held that a Registrar cannot direct refusal of registration merely because the property's value shown is lower than what the Registrar believes proper (Chamkaur Singh v. State of Punjab), nor order production of an already-registered document merely to verify stamp duty (Thakar Das v. Emperor).

Illustration

If X presents a sale deed for registration and the Sub-Registrar refuses on the ground that the document was not properly stamped, X's remedy is an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72. If, instead, the executant Y appears before the Sub-Registrar and denies having executed the deed at all — claiming his thumb impression was taken on a blank paper — the Sub-Registrar cannot resolve this dispute himself; he must refer the matter to the Registrar, who then conducts a special inquiry under Part XII to determine whether execution genuinely took place, and either directs registration or refuses it, leaving a civil suit under Section 77 as the final remedy for the aggrieved party.

Comparative Summary