In K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 740), the Hon’ble Supreme court held that a registering officer does not have adjudicatory jurisdiction in respect of title of a property which an executant intends to transfer by way of a sale deed. It further added that even if the executant does not possess a valid title, the registration of sale deed could not be refused subject to payment of stamp duty as well as other compliances in the Registration Act.

In the same paragraph of the judgement of K. Gopi, the Hon’ble Court went on to explain that an executant can only transfer rights and interest which he possesses and if he does not possess any right or interest, the same could not be transferred.

By this judgement, two things are made clear; first being that a registering officer can not adjudicate the title of the executant and at the same time can not refuse to register the deed; second being, the executant can transfer rights and interest only to the extent, he possesses. Bottomline, the act of registration is merely a record of transaction and not a proof of ownership.

A purchaser may pay a substantial sum for acquiring property and secure registration of the sale deed, yet such registration affords only a reasonable assurance and presumption of ownership. There remains a real possibility that the vendor was never the true owner, and consequently lacked the capacity to transfer valid rights and title to the subsequent purchaser.

Title Search report and other due diligence can only shift presumptions in favor of a valid title but can not assure that a title is absolute and unimpeachable. The chain of title could be disrupted at any point of particular transaction and may go unnoticed thereby causing any subsequent transfer invalid.

In Pawan Garg & Ors Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation 2026 INSC 389, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that mere entry in Municipal property records can not constitute valid proof of title.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus recently on two counts blew up a general surmise that entry in Municipal records or registration is a valid ownership proof

So the position that as of now is we are living in regime of Presumptive Title System which is no doubt full of chaos. Title disputes are in large numbers pending in our country and which would be decided on the ground that who has a better title. The title of the loosing party would not be negated at the threshold but only the winning litigant would claim to have a better title.

The alternate to a Presumptive Title system would be a Conclusive Title System.

NITI Aayog circulated a Model Bill on Conclusive Land Titling in year 2020 building on the central government's Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (originally launched in 2008). The idea is that the states should either adopt the model bill or draft their own legislation and implement what has been suggested in the Model bill.

The scheme of the model bill is to enable the State Government is to establish a system of Title Registration and providing title certificate to the title holders of an immovable property. The Model bill contemplates for establishment of an Authority which shall prepare a record of immovable properties with identifiable and distinguishable particulars along with a record of title of such immovable properties. At the same time the model bill also envisages for establishment of a Title Registration officer which shall after inviting claims and objections against the record prepared by Authority and after due process maintain a record of title and may also handout a certificate of title.

The unique feature of this system is that for the first time, unlike MCD Records or registration record, this title certificate would be a proof of ownership as regards to an immovable property.

The concept of a conclusive title system envisions a government‑guaranteed ownership framework. Under such a system, when a purchaser acquires property, the vendor’s ownership would already stand certified by the State. Consequently, upon purchase, the buyer’s title would be conclusively guaranteed by the Government, eliminating uncertainty over ownership.

While Rajasthan has enacted The Rajasthan Urban Land (Certification of Titles) Act, 2016 however the scheme is yet confined to urban areas only while on the other hand, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana have taken some steps in the direction but still operates on the presumptive title system only.

The scheme of Conclusive Titling is being accompanied by Aadhar linked registration system where in several states have rolled out Aadhar as well as biometric linking at the time of registration itself thereby securing the identity of the vendor and purchaser at the time of registration itself so as to avoid impersonation and benami transactions.

The nationwide implementation of a conclusive titling system remains a distant goal and may well take a decade to materialize in its intended form. Achieving this requires unwavering commitment from State Governments. Nonetheless, it is a much‑needed reform. Such a system would not only curb the malpractices of land grabbers and property mafias but also substantially reduce civil disputes that otherwise burden the civil courts.