Can a registering officer refuse registration under Section 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908 on mere suspicion of forgery?

(Judgment of the Court was made by Abdul Quddhose J.) This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.41300 of 2025.

The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent herein filed the writ petition challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 12.05.2025 (signed on 14.05.2025) issued by the 3rd respondent and also the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in the appeal by the 2nd respondent.

In the aforesaid refusal check slip dated 12.05.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent as well as in the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent, the respondent’s right to register the general power of attorney has been rejected on the ground there are discrepancies found in the parent documents produced by the respondent herein with regard to the ownership and for the non-production of the original document. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed the aforesaid writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.41300 of 2025. In the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, the learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 3rd respondent as well as the impugned order of the 2nd respondent and had directed the 3rd respondent to register the deed of irrevocable general power of attorney dated 11.04.2025 presented by the respondent immediately, upon re-presentation of the same by the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.41300 of 2025, this writ appeal has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition.

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants drew the attention of this Court to the following documents produced by the respondent before the registering authorities at the time of presentation of the general power of attorney for registration: a) The 1st Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1974; b) The 2nd Partnership Deed dated 31.01.1979; c) The 3rd Partnership Deed dated 05.09.1992.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants also drew the attention of this Court to the firm registration certificate issued by the state of Telangana in favour of the partnership firm (respondent) and would submit that earlier, the partnership firm was registered in the state of Tamil Nadu, whereas all of a sudden, it has now been registered in Telangana, which creates suspicion in the minds of the registering authority. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would also submit that within 5 days from the date of registration of the partnership firm in the state of Telangana, a board resolution is said to have been passed by the firm, authorising two partners only to execute and register the power of attorney executed for the sale of the partnership firm’s property. Therefore, he would submit that only due to the aforesaid discrepancies found from the documents produced by the respondent, the appellants refused to register the power of attorney presented by the respondent for registration.

Learned counsel for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to the grounds of appeal filed by the respondent before the Appellate Authority (District Registrar) and would submit that full particulars have been furnished by the respondent in the said appeal. He would submit that only due to the death and retirement of some of the partners in the partnership firm, a deed of re-constitution of partnership was executed on 19.10.2022 under which the two partners were the only partners of the partnership firm. He would also submit that a proper resolution was passed by the partnership firm authorising the two partners to execute the Power of Attorney for the sale of the property belonging to the partnership firm. He would also submit that the registering authority does not have power to adjudicate the title of the property and since the respondent has produced all the relevant documents, the registering authority cannot refuse registration of the power of attorney presented by the respondent for registration. He would also further submit that in the civil proceedings initiated by the partnership firm seeking for the recovery of money against TWAD Board, it has been recognised through arbitration proceedings, that two partners, who had presented the power of attorney for registration, were the authorised partners, who have represented the interest of the partnership firm (respondent). Discussion:

As seen from the reasons given by the appellants, both the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 3rd respondent as well as in the appeal in the order passed by the 2nd respondent, only on mere suspicion, the appellants have refused to register the general power of attorney presented by the respondent for registration. Section 22-B of the Registration Act 1908, empowers the Registering Officer to refuse the registration of fraudulent, illegal or disputed documents including the forged papers, transactions prohibited by law and properties attached by a competent authority.

Under Section 22-B of the Registration Act, the Registering Officials can refuse registration under the following grounds:

A suspicion of forgery can be conclusively established only by a civil Court as proving forgery requires concrete evidence, original documents and clear proof of fraudulent intent. In cases of forgery, there may be a requirement for obtaining handwriting or forensic expert which only a civil court can direct and not a registering authority. Forgery also involves the element of dishonest intent. To find out whether there is an intention to deceive, it also requires oral and documentary evidence. The Civil Court alone has the power to analyse the oral and documentary evidence in order to adjudicate whether a party has committed the act of forgery/fraud or not. In the case on hand, merely based on suspicion and only on a prima facie consideration of the documents, the registering authority has refused to register the general power of attorney presented by the respondent for registration by exercising power under Section 22-B of the Registration Act.

The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in R.Kathirvel Vs. the Inspector General of Registration [2024 (4) LW 110], has struck down Section 77-A of the Registration Act as unconstitutional. Section 77-A of the Registration Act had earlier empowered the registering authority to cancel registered documents, if the registering authority is of the opinion that the said registered documents are fraudulent documents. A Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision held that only a Civil Court can adjudicate as to whether any registered document is a fraudulent document or not.

The aforesaid view is also accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and Others reported in (2026) 2 SCC 696 on the ground that the Civil Court alone can adjudicate the title of any property as the said adjudication requires oral and documentary evidence, which the registering authority does not have the power to analyse.

Section 22-B gives the registration officials the power to refuse the registration of forged or prohibited documents upfront, whereas Section 77-A (prior to it being deemed as unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court), was designed to give District Registrars the power to cancel documents already registered if they violated Section 22-A or 22-B. Section 22-B acts as a shield before registration by enabling the Sub- Registrar to reject bogus, forged or legally prohibited transactions, whereas 77-A, prior to its repeal from the statute book, acted as a corrective tool after registration, empowering the District Registrar to conduct an enquiry and cancel a registered document found to be fraudulent contrary to Section 22-A and 22-B. Section 77-A of the Act was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kathirvel's case, for conferring excessive quasi-judicial powers on executive officials to adjudicate civil title and property disputes. The same principle applied by the Division Bench of this court in Kathirvel's case for testing the vires of section 77-A of the Registration Act, will have to be applied to Section 22-B of the Act as well. Only based on mere suspicion, the appellants have refused to register the General Power of Attorney presented by the respondent for registration. There is no undisputed and conclusive evidence available for coming to the conclusion that the Power of Attorney presented by the respondent for registration will fall under any of the categories of illegal documents provided under Section 22-B of the Registration Act.

The learned single Judge has rightly directed the Registration Department to register the general power of attorney presented by the respondent for registration through the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.41300 of 2025. However, in order to protect the interest of the appellants, in case in the near future there is a finding rendered by a competent Civil Court or by any statutory authority that the respondent is not having title over the subject property and the partners, who have passed a Board Resolution are not competent to act on behalf of the partnership firm, we deem it fit to direct the respondent to execute a letter of indemnity in favour of the Registration Department for registering their power of attorney presented for registration.

In the near future, if a competent Court of law or any statutory authority declares that the respondent or any of the partners do not have the authority to present the general power of attorney or any other document for registration, then to secure the interest of the Appellants, the respondent has to be directed by this Court to execute a letter of indemnity agreeing to indemnify the appellants for whatever losses suffered by them and also permit the registering authority to cancel the registration of the subject Power of Attorney forthwith.

For the foregoing reasons, we deem it fit to modify the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 06.11.2025 in W.P.No.41300 of 2025 by issuing the following directions: a) The respondent is directed to re-present the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 executed by them with the 3 rd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the re-presentation of the said deed of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney within the stipulated time, the 3rd respondent is directed to register the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 re-presented by the respondent for registration, after obtaining the letter of indemnity from the respondent and its partners which has to be satisfaction of the 3rd appellant and the said letter of indemnity should make it clear that in case in the near future, any competent Court of law or any other statutory authority declares the respondent herein or its partners do not have the authority to present the General Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 for registration, the 3rd appellant is empowered to cancel the General Power of Attorney referred supra forthwith without prior notice to the respondent. b) The respondent and its partners are directed to submit a letter of indemnity with the 3 rd appellant, simultaneously, along with re-presentation of the said Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 for re-presentation. c) The aforesaid registration of the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 executed by the respondent shall be completed by the 3rd appellant, subject to the fulfilment of the requirement to execute a letter of indemnity by the respondent within a period of three days from the date of fulfilment of the conditions imposed by this Court as stated supra.

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.