The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Registering Authority to withhold documents in cases of suspected fraud and impersonation, as provided under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

1. Being aggrieved over the withholding of the sale deed presented by the petitioner on 17.4.2013 for registration, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to release the said sale deed forthwith.

2. According to the petitioner, he entered into a sale deed dated 17.04.2013 in respect of a property in T.S.No. 19 (O.S.No. 158/1 part) measuring 3830 sq.ft. situated at Block No.6, Saligramam, Chennai with one Mr. S.N. Padmanaban on one part and with 1. Kalaiarasan 2. Gunasekaran 3. Surya 4. Rajeswari 5. Sivasangari 6. Jayanthi 7. Jaiganesh 8. Karthick and 9. Thenmozhi represented by their Power of Attorney Agent, Mr. R. Dineshbabu on the second part. The total sale consideration for the transaction was Rs.1,25,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner by way of a demand draft and also by cash to the vendors. The sale deed had a guideline value of Rs.1,72,35,000/- and stamps were paid for Rs.12,06,450/- and a sum of Rs.1,72,350/- was paid towards registration fee and the document was presented before the third respondent herein for registration, which was assigned with registration number, i.e. 2558 of 2013 on the very same day.

3. While so, after a month, the third respondent issued a pending number to the said document, without assigning any reasons and did not return the sale deed after registering the same. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a letter, dated 22.5.2013 stating that a release deed in Document No. 7020 of 2011 dated 01.12.2011 given by Dhanaselvi and other in favour of vendor of the petitioner, namely, S.N. Padmanaban, was a forged document and thereby, the second respondent by proceedings, dated 10.10.2012 held that the sale deeds executed in Document Nos. 742 and 750 of 2012 pursuant to the said forged release deed, are not valid in law. The second respondent relied on the orders passed by the first respondent, dated 03.11.2011, which according to the petitioner, were stayed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 26019 to 26021 of 2012 even before the second respondent passed by the above said orders.

4. It is also stated that the so-called forged release deed pertaining to the property situate in T.S.No.14, measuring 0.00.29.5 Ares and not the subject matter of the sale deed which pertains to the property situate in T.S. No. 19, measuring 0.35.56 Ares, which was withheld by the third respondent. Therefore, relying upon the orders of the first and second respondent, withholding the sale deed by the third respondent is illegal since the order of the first respondent has been stayed by this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

5. A detailed counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, wherein, while disputing the averments made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has indulged in fraudulent activity of creating false document with a view to grab the property of the 4th respondent, against which, criminal proceedings were already initiated and pending. The petitioner has suppressed all the material facts and filed the present writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed in limine. According to the 4th respondent, he purchased a housing plot measuring 400 sq.ft., bearing Plot No, 27, situated at Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani, forming part of Survey No. 158, Saligramam village in the name of his wife, Mrs. N. Saraswathi under a registered sale deed dated 27.3.1961 from the original owner K.M. Lakshmanan. On 22.2.2001, his wife passed away, leaving the 4th respondent and her three sons and two daughters as legal heirs. While so, the 4th respondent did not visit the property during the year 2011-12 and when he visited the property on 14.2.2012, he found some third party encroached his property by putting up a thatched shed. On verification of the encumbrance certificate, he came to know that the names of one Dhanalakshmi and 7 others were mentioned. According to the 4th respondent, the said perso