On November 7, the Supreme Court reiterated that registration of a sale deed may not necessarily mean ownership of the property under the current laws – the second time this year that the court had made such a clarification.In its judgments – not only in November but also in April – the court clarified that registering a property document does not prove ownership. Both rulings struck down state rules that sought to turn the sub-registrar’s office into a mini-court, requiring checks on whether the seller actually owns the land being sold.In doing so, the court held that registration in India is about a transaction, not ownership. It also called India’s land record system “structurally fragile” and, in the November order, even went a step further to suggest the use of blockchain technology as an “alternative paradigm” to integrate “the property registration regime with conclusive titling”.Here’s what the two rulings taken together mean.What does ‘registration’ meanThe government’s powers related to property registration are laid down in, and circumscribed by, three pieces of legislation: the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908.The Transfer of Property Act stipulates the transfer of ownership, which is done through sale, gift, lease or mortgages; the Stamp Act ensures the government gets its share of tax; and the Registration Act underpins the registration of documents.Every transaction must be recorded with the sub-registrar so there is a public record of who sold what to whom.However, the registration only records the deal. It does not certify who truly owns the property. Instead, what is relied upon is a presumptive title — a system under which the registered document creates a presumption of ownership.However, this can always be challenged in a court of law – a major reason why around 66 percent of civil cases are over land title.Story continues below this adApril 2025 orderIn the case of K Gopi v Sub Registrar, which originated from Tamil Nadu, the state had added Rule 55A in The Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, framed under the Registration Act 1908, stating that when a document is presented for registration of an immovable property, the registering officer “shall not register the same, unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation”, and, in some cases, revenue records like patta and tax receipts.The state intended to prevent fraud by ensuring that no one sells property that doesn’t belong to them. In practice, it created bureaucratic difficulties, making it challenging for families to find decades-old documents and for those with ancestral properties that never had registration deeds in the first place.In the case before the SC, the sub-registrar refused to register the petitioner’s sale deed under this rule, and the high court upheld the rejection. The case eventually went up to the Supreme Court, which struck down the rule and said that the Registration Act does not empower sub-registrars to check title or ownership and that their role is merely ministerial, with their only mandate being to verify that the paperwork is in order and the parties have signed it voluntarily.“It is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer,” the Bench said, adding that once procedural requirements are met, the document must be registered.Story continues below this adThe court stated that registration only records the rights the seller actually has — if the seller has none, the registration doesn’t create them. It held that thus, the Tamil Nadu rule went beyond the parent law and was invalid.November 2025 judgmentThe second case — Samiullah v. State of Bihar — concerned a similar rule in which the state empowered sub-registrars to refuse registration unless the seller produced proof of mutation, called jamabandi, or a holding allotment certificate.Mutation is the process of updating government land records to reflect new ownership after a sale. Bihar’s logic was simple: if the land isn’t mutated in the seller’s name, they can’t sell it.But the ground reality was different. In much of Bihar, the survey and settlement process had not been completed for decades, and most jamabandis still stood in the names of long-deceased ancestors.Story continues below this adThe Supreme Court found that the rule, while well-intentioned, was legally flawed and impossible to follow.“While we appreciate the intention of the State to synchronise the registrable document with real time land holding, there is a big missing link given that the process of mutation and the process of survey and settlement are nowhere near completion,” the court said.Making mutation a precondition for registration restricted people’s freedom to hold and dispose of property, the court held.“A requirement of rules, regulations or even law that impedes or restrains easy and effective transfer of property will be illegal,” the Bench said, striking down the Bihar government’s notification as arbitrary and ultra vires.Story continues below this adWhat SC said on ownershipIn both cases, the Supreme Court made clear that civil courts – not the sub-registrar – decide who owns a property. It held that India follows a presumptive title system, and the sub-registrar’s role is limited to recording transactions.Registration only shows that a deal took place; it does not prove who actually owns the land, the court held, striking down rules such as Tamil Nadu’s Rule 55A and Bihar’s requirement for jamabandi proof for wrongly asking registrars to decide ownership — something only the courts can do.What the court said on blockchain technologyIn the Bihar judgment, the court also included a blueprint for reform, urging a shift to blockchain-based property registration.It noted that efforts such as the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP) and the National Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS) had made progress in computerising records, but that merely scanning old papers doesn’t fix underlying errors.Story continues below this ad“Digitisation is the process of creating an electronic copy of the existing paper record, and if the original record is inaccurate, incomplete or subject to dispute, the digital version will simply perpetuate the flaw,” the Court said.The Bench then suggested exploring blockchain technology, a digital ledger that stores data in an immutable and transparent way to bring integrity and trust to land registration.Blockchain, the court observed, could make every transaction traceable, “more secure, transparent and tamper-proof” and potentially help India move from its current “presumptive title” system to a conclusive title system where registration itself becomes proof of ownership guaranteed by the State.The court asked the Law Commission of India to study how blockchain and other technologies could be integrated into land registration and to consult states, experts and the Centre on drafting a new legal framework for this transition.