Madras High Court· 01 September 2026
Must a person obtaining registration by writ direction execute a letter of indemnity in favour of the Registration Department where title remains to be adjudicated?
The Inspector General of Registration v. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate
WA.275/2026 · 2026:MHC:3667 · WA No. 275 of 2026
Coram: Justice Abdul Quddhose · Justice R.Rajesh Vivekananthan
Answer
A person obtaining registration by writ direction must execute a letter of indemnity in favour of the Registration Department where title remains to be adjudicated.
Yes. A person obtaining registration by writ direction must execute a letter of indemnity in favour of the Registration Department where title remains to be adjudicated. The indemnity has to state that if a competent Court or statutory authority later declares that the presenter or its partners had no authority to present the document, the registering authority may cancel the registration forthwith without prior notice.
Headnote
Registration Act, 1908 — s.22-B — s.77-A — Constitution of India — Art.226 — Refusal of registration — Suspicion of a forged document — Jurisdiction of the registering officer —
Registration Act, 1908 — s.22-B — Refusal of registration — Suspicion is not conclusive evidence —
Held: A registering officer cannot refuse registration under s.22-B on mere suspicion that a document is forged. Fraudulent intent has to be proved on oral and documentary evidence, which a Civil Court alone can analyse. (¶9)
Registration Act, 1908 — s.22-B — s.77-A — Adjudication of title barred to the executive —
Held further: The principle on which s.77-A was struck down applies to s.22-B as well: neither permits a registering official to adjudicate title or fraud in the absence of undisputed and conclusive evidence. (¶12)
Registration Act, 1908 — s.22-B — Letter of indemnity as a protective condition —
Held further: Where registration is directed although title remains open, the presenter must execute a letter of indemnity permitting cancellation should a competent court or authority later find want of authority. Writ appeal disposed of. (¶13, 15)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountIn the Court's own words
Paragraph 13The 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.
Paragraph 15For 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.
Acts & Sections
s.22-B Registration Act, 1908s.77-A Registration Act, 1908s.22-A Registration Act, 1908Art.226 Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of The Inspector General of Registration v. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →