Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 39

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent decision in Samiullah vs State of Bihar, described the process of buying and selling property as “traumatic” for many Indians. The observation resonates widely, reflecting the complex and often challenging realities of land transactions in the country.

What did the Supreme Court rule in the Samiullah case?

The Supreme Court examined the validity of sub-rules introduced under the Bihar Registration Rules in 2019, which empowered registering authorities to refuse the registration of documents transferring property, such as sale or gift deeds, if the seller could not provide proof of mutation, including documents like a Jamabandi or holding allotment.

The court struck down these sub-rules as ultra vires and arbitrary for three reasons.

First, the rules went beyond the powers granted to the Inspector General of Registration under the Registration Act. Second, by making sellers produce proof of mutation as a precondition for registration, the rules effectively demanded evidence of title, which was contrary to the object of the Registration Act. This curtailed the ability to freely transfer property and significantly impacted the constitutionally protected right to property. Third, with the Bihar Mutation Act and the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act far from completion, obtaining proof of mutation was virtually impossible.

The court reaffirmed that registration of a transfer deed is distinct from establishing title or ownership. Enquiries into title and ownership fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts, not registration offices. Preconditions for registration relate only to identifying the property and the seller, with references to maps or surveys used solely for this purpose where practicable.

Why is registration different from title?

The State of Bihar argued that mandatory proof of mutation would ensure integrity in sale transactions by aligning registration with actual title. While acknowledging the merit in synchronisation, the court pointed to the lack of nationwide land surveys since 1950 and insufficient digitisation of land records as major obstacles.

Until conclusive titling is integrated with registration, constitutional courts must balance individuals’ freedom to buy and sell property with the State’s duty to preserve transaction integrity.

In June, in K. Gopi vs Sub-Registrar, the Supreme Court clarified that Sub-Registrars have no adjudicatory power to decide ownership-related questions. It struck down a Tamil Nadu rule that allowed refusal of registration unless the seller proved title by producing original ownership deeds.

A similar reasoning was applied in Samiullah.

Both judgments emphasise that the Registration Act concerns only document registration. Registration creates a rebuttable presumption of ownership, not conclusive proof. The forthcoming Registration Bill, 2025, which aims to replace the Registration Act of 1908, aligns with this principle. Registration authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes, which fall under the jurisdiction of competent courts.

Why has buying and selling property become ‘traumatic’ in India?

Land governance in India is shaped by colonial laws, complex administrative systems, and an overburdened judiciary, resulting in prolonged bureaucratic and judicial disputes.

Three separate domains—Registration, Survey and Settlement, and Revenue—function independently, making record synchronisation difficult. The system creates only a presumption of title, which can be challenged using prior deeds, revenue records, mutation entries, possession proofs, or even competing sale deeds. Buyers therefore bear the burden of extensive due diligence.

Historical inconsistencies further complicate land governance. Centuries of varied rulers, differing revenue systems, colonial administration, princely state rules, multiple title categories, and post-independence land reforms have produced a highly complex and region-specific legal framework.

Source: The Hindu

Question 1

A State government introduces a rule empowering Sub-Registrars to refuse registration of sale deeds unless the seller produces mutation records. In most districts of the State, land surveys have not been completed and mutation records are unavailable.

A seller challenges the refusal of registration.

Which of the following is the most legally sustainable outcome based on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the passage?

A. The refusal is valid because mutation ensures transaction integrity
B. The refusal is invalid as it imposes an impossible precondition
C. The refusal is valid since land records must be synchronised
D. The refusal is valid until digitisation of land records is complete

Correct Answer: B

Question 2

Ramesh purchases a property through a registered sale deed. Later, a third party files a civil suit claiming ownership based on older deeds and possession records.

Ramesh argues that registration conclusively establishes his ownership.

Based on the passage, how is this dispute most likely to be resolved?

A. Registration creates a rebuttable presumption, allowing ownership to be challenged
B. Registration conclusively establishes ownership
C. Registration bars civil courts from examining title
D. Registration nullifies all prior claims

Correct Answer: A

Question 3

A Sub-Registrar refuses to register a gift deed after concluding that the donor is not the true owner of the property based on revenue records.

Which of the following best reflects the legal flaw in the Sub-Registrar’s action?

A. Failure to rely on survey maps
B. Ignoring mutation records
C. Adjudicating questions of title beyond statutory authority
D. Acting without permission from the Inspector General of Registration

Correct Answer: C

Question 4

The State argues that requiring proof of mutation before registration will prevent fraudulent transactions and align registration with actual ownership.

Which response best reflects the Supreme Court’s position as described in the passage?

A. The objective is valid, but systemic limitations make such rules unconstitutional
B. Fraud prevention justifies all preconditions to registration
C. Registration must always reflect perfect title
D. Mutation is the sole determinant of ownership

Correct Answer: A

Question 5

A State plans to adopt blockchain technology for land records. However, inaccurate historical data is uploaded without verification, resulting in incorrect ownership entries.

Based on the passage, which concern is most consistent with the Supreme Court’s reasoning?

A. Blockchain records automatically cure historical defects
B. Technological reform must account for accuracy and existing land systems
C. Digitisation alone guarantees conclusive title
D. Courts should defer entirely to technological records

Correct Answer: B