The State Government does not register the documents gratis. Registration fees is fixed as per section 78 of the Registration Act, 1908. This is collected apart from stamp duty. Therefore, as observed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Chandru, the registering authority cannot act like a post office and register any document that is dumped before him. Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, lays down that there must be entitlement to transferable property.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings bearing No.7375/E/2018 dated 08.01.2019 of the second respondent herein and quash the same.

1. One Arivazhagan and Sannasi (5th respondent in this writ petition) executed sale deed dated 18.06.2005 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Annavasal as document No.1192 of 2005 on 27.07.2005 in favour of Ramakrishnan (4th respondent herein) conveying inter alia, the immovable property comprised in S.No.210/2B1 measuring 0.24.0 hac in Melur Vilage in Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District. The total extent of land in the said survey number is 0.37.0 hac. The grievance of the fourth respondent, namely, Ramakrishnan was that even though he owned 0.24.0 hac out of 0.37.0 hac in S.No.210/2B1, the entire survey number stood solely in the name of Shri.Rangaraj (the first petitioner herein) in the revenue records. He found out that even though Sannasi was a party to the sale deed dated 18.06.2005, he subsequently executed sale deed dated 13.07.2006 (document no.1135 of 2006) in which he sold the entire 0.37.0 hac in S.No.210/2B1 in favour of Thiru.Rangaraj, the first petitioner herein.

2. Having come to know of this, he submitted a petition dated 10.08.2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Illuppur. The RDO Illuppur conducted an enquiry in the matter. By proceedings dated 05.10.2018, he directed the Tahsildar, Kulathur to make changes in the revenue records so that the names of both Ramakrishnan as well as Rangaraj can figure as joint pattadhars in S.No.210/2B1. Thereafter, the fourth respondent herein submitted a petition dated 16.10.2018 before the District Registrar, Pudukkottai pointing out the conduct of Sannasi and Rangaraj. The fourth respondent herein wanted the District Registrar, Pudukottai to take action in the matter in terms of the Circular bearing Letter No.41530/U1/2017 dated 08.11.2017. The District Registrar, Trichirappalli, the third respondent herein by order dated 07.12.2018 relegated the applicant Ramakrishnan to move the jurisdictional civil court. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Trichirappalli (R2 herein). After enquiring the parties concerned, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 in proceedings bearing No.7375/E/2018 holding that the document in favour of Ramakrishnan/the fourth respondent is a genuine transaction and that the one executed in favour of Thiru.C.Rangaraj is fraudulent. He issued a direction that R4 herein will be entitled to deal with the property in question as a genuine owner. He directed the registering officer to initiate criminal prosecution in terms of the Circular dated 31.07.2018 in Letter No.41530/U1/2017 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai – 600 028. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed.

3. This Court by order dated 07.02.2019 granted interim stay of the impugned order. To vacate the same, the third respondent has filed WMP(MD)No.4706 of 2019. The fourth respondent herein has also filed a miscellaneous petition to vacate the stay granted by this Court.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the other respondents.

5. The core argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the impugned proceedings are wholly lacking in jurisdiction. According to him, the registering authority has no power to go into disputed questions of right, title and interest to immovable property. By issuing the impugned declaration characterizing one transaction as genuine and the other as fraudulent, the registering authority has usurped the jurisdiction of the civil court. According to him, the impugned order is not in consonance