JUDGMENT :

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

This appeal has been filed by the Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam, rep. by its Southern Regional Manager, Tirunelveli (hereinafter referred to as appellant) challenging the order dated 08.02.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.3140 of 2018, in a Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the proceedings of the Sub Registrar, Pettai, Tirunelveli, dated 03.07.2015, and the order passed by the District Registrar (Administration), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, the appellate authority, confirming the order passed by the Sub Registrar, Pettai, Tirunelveli. The first respondent has also sought for a consequential direction to register and release the sale deed, which was kept pending as document No.29/2015 executed by the first respondent in respect of the property in S.No.15/1B, Vagaikulam Village, Tirunelveli Taluk and District.

2. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding that the Sub Registrar as well as the District Registrar had adjudicated on the title of the first respondent over the subject property and come to the conclusion that he had no right over the property and hence cannot present any document for registration. Referring to Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, the learned Writ Court held that the registering authorities cannot decide the title of any person to an immovable property and cannot enquire into the validity of the documents brought before them for registration. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed with a direction to register and release the document.

3. The appellant challenges the order passed in the Writ Petition firstly on the ground that the first respondent did not avail the statutory remedy available under Section 77 of the Registration Act. Secondly, there is a prohibition to register the property belonging to Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments and Mutts in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Thirdly the land in question belongs to the appellant Mutt and as on date the revenue records stand in the name of the Mutt. Apart from the above grounds the appellant would contend that the Mutt had executed Karar Nama dated 20.09.1939 in favour of one Essakiammal and using the tenancy right, the said Essakiammal sold the property and first respondent claims right through one of the person who had purchased the property from the purchasers of Essakiammal. It is further contended that the Registration Authority did not go into the title of the property but verified the revenue record and found that the property stands in the name of the appellant Mutt and therefore, rightly refused registration. Further, it is contended that no patta was granted to Essakkiammal or persons claiming under her under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the revenue records are in the name of the appellant Mutt.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had elaborately referred to the documents, which were placed in the form of typed set of documents and the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition and prayed for setting aside the order passed in the Writ Petition. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shanmugam and 113 others v. Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam Manam and another [1997-1-L.W. 287] and Sudha Ravi Kumar v. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner, HR & CE Department (DB) [2017 (3) CTC 135].

5. Countering the above submissions Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, submitted that the said Essakkiammal had not only been granted Melwaram rights over the land in question but also Kudiwaram rights and patta has been granted in favour of the first respondent's vendors and the contention of the appellant that the revenue records stand in the name of the Mutt is not tenable. The vendors of the first respondent after purchasing the property h