Property ownership or tangible property is considered one of the fundamental pillars of economic systems in various societies. For this reason, the legislator, with a cautious approach, has made it mandatory to officially register contracts related to real estate in order to prevent any illegal interference and seizure of property rights. This requirement not only protects the rights of the owners, but also guarantees the legal security of third parties who intend to trade on these properties without being fully aware of their legal records. The issue of the present research is whether it is possible to find a solution based on jurisprudential evidence that prevents the transfer of immovable property in ordinary (informal) ways and restricts it to official documents? In response to this fundamental question, there are two general approaches; the idea of denial (impossibility or legitimacy of such an approach) and the idea of proof (jurisprudential-legal justification of this solution). Some jurists from the past and present believe that the principle of authenticity and validity of an official document is conditional on the registration process requiring the fulfillment of conditions equivalent to Sharia evidence. Opposite to the idea of denial is the intellectual movement of proof, which believes that by carefully rereading the Sharia ruling on the validity of an official document as one of the evidences for proving a claim, one can reach the conclusion that an official document not only has legal validity, but also has precedence over many of them in cases of conflict with other evidences, including ordinary documents. Supporters of this view have relied on strong references, including primary rulings, secondary rulings, and even government rulings, to establish their legal jurisprudential foundations regarding the validity of official documents.