S. 75(4) Registration Act | Registrar Can Call For Documents To Verify Title But Can't Cancel Sale Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while a Registrar is empowered to conduct an enquiry under Section 75(4) of the Registration Act by issuing notice to parties to produce documents establishing their title, such power does not extend to cancelling a registered sale deed. [2026 LiveLaw (2026) 154]

Refusing to interfere with a notice issued by the District Registrar calling upon the petitioner to appear with relevant documentary evidence, the Court clarified that the enquiry could only be conducted in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and could not culminate in cancellation of the sale deed.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Sujatha observed:

"Admittedly, in the present case, though Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 states that notice is issued only with regard to causing production of the documentary evidence to prove the title, but not to proceed to cancel the sale deed. However, a complaint has been lodged by the Assistant General Manager, SAR, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam to the extent of cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed executed by the Petitioner on 29.08.2016, which admittedly is not within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Respondent No.2 can conduct an enquiry under Section 75 (4) of the Registration Act by issuing notice to the Petitioner directing him to appear with all relevant documentary evidence to prove the title, but cannot further proceed to cancel the sale deed."

The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the District Registrar directing him to appear for an enquiry with all relevant documents to establish his title over a disputed property. He argued that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to conduct such an enquiry and that the notice was an attempt to exercise powers that belong exclusively to civil courts.

According to the petitioner, the property had originally been purchased by his father through a registered sale deed in 1926 and later devolved upon him. He sold a part of the property in 2009.

Later, after that property was sold in a bank auction following the purchaser's loan default, the petitioner executed another registered sale deed in 2016 in respect of a portion of the same property, giving rise to the dispute.

The District Registrar submitted that the notice was issued after the State Bank of India complained that the petitioner had executed the 2016 sale deed despite the property having already been mortgaged and sold in auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

The Bank alleged that the subsequent sale was fraudulent and sought cancellation of the sale deed. The Registrar, however, maintained that the notice was issued only to conduct a preliminary enquiry and not to cancel the document or decide title.

Examining Section 75(4) of the Registration Act, the High Court held that the Registrar was empowered to summon parties and conduct an enquiry by calling for documentary evidence regarding title. However, it clarified that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to cancel a registered sale deed merely because the complaint sought such relief.

Since the impugned notice only required the petitioner to appear and produce documents, the Court found no reason to interfere. It directed the petitioner to appear before the District Registrar within four weeks with all relevant documents, following which the Registrar shall conduct an enquiry under Section 74 of the Registration Act.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: Sornapudi Chinna Rao v. Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department & Anr.

Case No.: Writ Petition No: 338 OF 2018

Counsel for the Petitioner: T.V. Jaggi Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue; GP for Registration and Stamps (AP)

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 154