JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the order dated 20.12.2019 made in RFL/Valapady/103/2019 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to register the sale agreement dated 19.12.2019 submitted by the Petitioner.)

1. In W.P.(MD) No.24429 of 2018, N.Raju Vs. District Registrar, Trichy, and Another, by order dated 07.03.2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the 2nd Respondent, Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar’s Office, Thiruverumbur, Trichy, to register an Agreement of Sale entered into by the Petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner had earlier registered an Agreement of Sale with respect to the same property. The objections raised by the 2nd Respondent that the earlier agreement was still in force, was brushed aside by the learned Single Judge.

2. In W.P.No.33601 of 2019, Venkatamma Vs. Sub-Registrar, Hosur and Another, by order dated 02.12.2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Petitioner therein who wanted to register a Settlement Deed, notwithstanding the fact that an Agreement of Sale with respect to the same property had been registered, to approach the competent Civil Court and seek a declaration that the Agreement of Sale was null and void and unenforceable.

3. In the instant Writ Petition No.674 of 2020, the learned Single Judge, faced with two directly contradictory views by two learned Single Judges, had, exercising prudence, placed the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to form a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict of views.

4. The Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to constitute this Bench to examine the issues.

5. Naturally, the issues raised would have to be addressed by meandering through the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, vis-a-vis documents which presented for registration and the circumstances under which a Registering authority can refuse registration. The salient features of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will also have to be examined with specific reference to the rights created under an Agreement of Sale.

6. Erudite views and counter views were advanced by Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Additional Advocate General and M/s.C.Prabakaran and S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsels.

7. The assistance referred by Ms.Zeenath Begum and Ms.K.Ponmani, learned counsels and Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader, has to be also appreciated.

8. My learned Brother had undertaken the task of venturing into a discussion on all the relevant aspects. I agree and concur with the view taken by him namely, that there cannot be a refusal for registering a document as presented by the Registering authority, except on the grounds as given under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

This matter has been placed for reference in view of the conflicting orders passed by the learned single judges on the issue as to whether once sale agreement is registered by the Vendor, the subsequent documents in respect of the same immovable property could be refused to be registered by the Registrar. The sum and substance of the reference is that once an agreement for sale is registered under the Registration Act, the vendor is debarred from effecting any agreement or transfer in respect of the same immovable property, subject matter of the agreement.

2. Heard Mr.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr.S.R. Rajagopal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 1st Respondent/Sub-Registrar, Salem and Mr.S. Suresh Kumar appearing for the 2nd Respondent.

3. Before dealing with the substantive provision of law as to the registration and also transfer of properties, we feel it necessary to record the object of the Registration Act. The object and purpose of the Re