P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. Ext.P6 communication issued to the petitioner by the Registrar exercising powers under the Registration Act ('the Act' for short) in relation to a document presented by the petitioner for registration, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 14 Ares of property in re-survey No.65/7 of Thodiyoor village; that he obtained the said property by virtue of Ext.P1 partition deed; that he executed Ext.P2 settlement deed in respect of the said property in favour of his son and that when the said document was presented for registration, the Registrar refused to register the document. Ext.P6 is the communication issued by the Registrar to the petitioner in this connection. In Ext.P6, the Registrar has stated that the property sought to be conveyed as per Ext.P2 settlement deed is a property obtained by 56 persons by virtue of Ext.P1 partition deed and that the claim of the petitioner that he being the only surviving owner among the 56 persons referred to in the partition deed, the said property devolved on him, is incorrect. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 communication.

3. One Thulaseedharan who got himself impleaded in this writ petition as the additional third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is contended, among others, that the petitioner has no manner of right over the property and that he was not even a party to Ext.P1 partition deed as claimed by him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the additional third respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Rule 67 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) ('the Rules' for short) contended that it is not the duty of the registering officer to enquire into the validity of a document brought before him for registration. According to the learned counsel, the Registrar can refuse registration of a document presented before him for registration only on the grounds mentioned in Rule 67 of the Rules. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the case of the petitioner is not a case falling under any of the objections referred to in Rule 67, the Registrar was bound to register the document.

6. As indicated above, Ext.P2 is a document executed on the strength of the right alleged to have been obtained by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 partition deed. Ext.P1 is a document of the year 1103 M.E. Ext.P1 partition deed indicates that the properties dealt with therein belonged to the family of one Ummini; that a temple existed in the property at the time of Ext.P1 partition deed and that the temple property, in the circumstances, was included as a separate schedule in the partition deed with a direction that the same shall be possessed and managed by the heads VERNACULAR MATTER of the family without default.

The relevant portion of Ext.P1 reads thus:

VERNACULAR MATTER

It is conceded that Ext.P2 settlement deed is executed in respect of the temple property referred to in Ext.P1 partition deed. In the light of the recitals in Ext.P1 partition deed, it is evident that a private religious endowment is created in respect of the temple property referred to therein for the benefit of the members of the family. As such, the view taken by the Registrar that the petitioner does not have title to the property referred to in Ext.P2 settlement deed cannot be said to be incorrect.

7. The question now is as to whether the Registrar can refuse registration of a document on that ground. Though the Act does not contain any specific provision dealing with the circumstances under which the Sub Registrar can refuse to register a document, Section 71 of the Act indicates beyond doubt that the Registrar has the power to refuse registration in appropriate cases. Section 71 of the said Act reads thus:

"71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded :- (1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to