The registrar cannot take action based on a complaint from less than 1/3rd of the society members. The registration itself is not proof of validity or title.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge of this court, dated 8th January 1987 in writ petition No. 5427/1983 whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein and one other (since deceased) seeking quashing of the endorsement Annexure-D by the sub-registrar, whereby he refused to register the trust deed executed a trustee of Sri raghavendra swamigalu brindavariam trust, k. m. puram, mysore, for the reason that the registrar of societies, mysore, has by his order dated 31-12-1982 prohibited him from registering the said document. The writ petitioners also challenged the notice issued by the registrar of societies, mysore, calling upon the secretary to explain why for the charges noted in the said notice, action should not be taken for appointment of an administrator to the said institution. The learned single judge by his impugned order dismissed the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are rot indispute : a society called Sri raghavendra swamy devasthanam constructions and managing committee was registered under the Mysore societies Registration Act 3 of 1904 on 4th of July 1975. The said society is administered by the Sri raghavendraswamy mutt. The society had 75 members. On 26-2-1982 at a meetirg of the general body of the society, a majority of members present unanimously passed a resolution dissolving the society and resolved to form a trust. Accordingly, the trust deed was drafted and executed, which was presented for registration before the first respondent, namely the sub-registrar. The first respondent by his order dated 2-3-1983 refused to accept the document for registration on the direction of the registrar of societies, Mysore district, mysore, by order dated 31-12-1982. It appears that 10 members of the society had filed an application to the registrar of societies on 30th december, 1982 bringing to his notice certain irregularities in the affairs of the society.

( 3 ) THE petitioners in the writ pstitioncontended that the registrar of societies could not hold an enquiry on the basis of complaint made to him by only 10 members of the society since they did not constitute not less than 1/3rd of the total membership. It was, therefore, submitted that the holding of an enquiry into the affairs of the society, which was the reason why the registrar of societies directed the sub-registrar not to register the trust deed, was wholly illegal since such an enquiry could be ordered only on the application of not less than 1/3rd of the members of the society. Secondly, it was contended that even assuming that an enquiry was in progress, that by itself did not authorise the registrar of societies to issue any direction to the sub-registrar, requiring him not to register a particular document if it was otherwise validly presented in accordance with law. Similarly, it was urged the sub-registrar could not refuse to register a document if it was presented before him and the Provisions of the Registration Act were duly complied with by the executant.

( 4 ) THE learned single judge, whoheard the writ petition did not concur with the view taken by the other learned single judge in mahila seva samaj and anr. V registrar of societies and others (1980 (1) kar. lj. 327 ). But even so, he took the view that since the registrar had acted suo motu, it was not necessary to investigate as to whether on the complaint less than 1/3rd members of the society, the registrar could have ordered an enquiry. He further held that since there was a resolution to dissolve the society, the properties of the society could not have been transferred to the trust according to sec 23 of the act. On this ground, the learned single judge found justification in the action of the registrar of societies directing the sub-registrar not to register the trust deed as it was contrary to sec. 23 of the act.

( 5 ) IN so far as the first question isconcerned, we may notice a recent decision of this co