The Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration based on instructions from the police unless it is in accordance with the Registration Act.

The property in S.No.436/1-B, Vani Village, Sakarakottai Group, Ramanathapuram comprised in patta No.815 of an extent of 77 cents belonged originally to Bathurusaman of Karikootam and the said land was purchased by S.O.M.Alifulla and A.J.P.Ibrahim. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased 1 acre 77 cents out of 1 acre 77 cents from A.J.P.Ibrahim and the legal heirs of S.O.M.Alifulla executed the sale deed on 08.04.2009 through their power agent. When the deed presented for registration before the first respondent by the petitioner and his vendors, the first respondent refused to register the document stating that they have received instructions in Audit Memo No.1 of 2009 dated 16.04.2009 in respect of S.No.436/1-B from the second respondent stating that a case has been registered in Crime No.7 of 2008 dated 18.09.2008 by the District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram and therefore, the Sub Registrar requested not to register any document either by sale or encumbrance and hence the document presented by the petitioner cannot be registered.

2. It is also mentioned in the said memo that if the petitioner obtains no objection certificate from the District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, the first respondent shall register the document. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the of the first respondent and for a direction directing the first respondent to register the document.

3. Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that a case has been registered in respect of forgery of documents in Crime No.7 of 2008 under Sections 109, 419, 465, 468, 471, 420, 506(ii) IPC against one Mr.S.M.Noor Mohamed as he has fraudulently sold properties belonging to others by creating forged documents and the District Crime Branch received so many complaints from the affected and aggrieved persons vide Crime Nos.9/2007, 5/2008, 8/2008, 9/2008 and 10/2008 in addition crime No.7 of 2008 and for the investigation, they have to collect various documents to ascertain the ownership of the properties and therefore, such instruction was issued by the second respondent directing the first respondent not to register the documents in respect of S.No.436/1-B. It is further stated by the learned Government Advocate that the Investigating Officer can issue reasonable instruction to the Sub Registrar of Registration to refuse registration if it is extremely necessary in the interest of justice.

4. Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent can refuse the registration only for the reasons stated in Sections 22-A, 34 and 35 of the Registration Act and he cannot refuse registration on the ground of receiving objections from the second respondent.

As per Section 34, the Sub Registrar can conduct enquiry about the identity of the person executing document or to satisfy himself the right of such person to appear in executing the document as stated in Section 34 (3) of the Registration Act. Section 35 deals with the procedure of admission and the denial of execution respectively and following the procedures stated therein, the Sub Registrar can either register or refuse the document. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the Sub Registrar has no power to refuse the registration at the behest of the second respondent and the second respondent has no authority to issue such instructions to the first respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further developed his argument by stating that the case in Crime No.7 of 2008 was registered at the instance of one of his vendors against the said Noor Mohammed and no case has been registered against his vendor as if they have committed the offence of cheating or forgery and therefore, the act of the respondents in refusing to register the documents validly executed by his vendors is not legal and therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent is liable t