JUDGMENT :

N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.

The appeal has been preferred by the appellants who got the sale registered in their favour on 04.07.2002, purchasing the entire extent of land comprised in old Survey No.167 and 169 and new Survey No.294/4, 295/5, 295/6 to an extent of 1.50 acres located in Olalakoil Kovil Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District from one Mr.P.R.Subramaniyan, S/o.Rasappa Gounder. The property originally belonged to Mr.Rasappa Gounder and he died interstate on 04.09.2001, leaving behind Mr.P.R.Subramanian/8th respondent, Ms.Komarayal/5th respondent, Ms.Marathal/6th respondent & Lakshmi @ Vijayalakshmi/7th respondent.

2. When things stand so, the widow/4th respondent and daughters/respondents 5, 6 & 7 executed a sale deed on 27.10.2015 in favour of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. When the sale deed was presented for registration before the official respondents, the 3rd respondent refused to register the sale deed by issuing memo dated 09.11.2015. The said order was challenged before the 2nd respondent/District Registrar who by way of an order dated 01.12.2015 rejected the appeal on the ground that Mr.P.R.Subramaniyan, already sold the entire extent of property to the appellants and therefore, the document cannot be registered. The said order was challenged before the learned single Judge. On contest, the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the Registering Authorities has got no power and passed a cryptic order. The said order is being challenged before this Court.

3. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submit that he has purchased the property as early as on 04.07.2002 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Having known all these facts, the widow and the sisters kept quiet for more than 13 years and subsequently, attempted to sell away the property to the 1st respondent/original writ petitioner and that was rightly prevented by the 2nd and 3rd respondent by refusing to register the said document.

4. However, Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the registration authorities has got no power to make enquiry with regard to the title of the property and they cannot refuse the registration on the ground that the property was already conveyed or sold. He would rely upon the Rule 55 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules to contend that the scope of enquiry to be conducted by the registering authority is only confined to five grounds which have been enumerated therein and beyond that the registration authority has got no power to refuse the registration on the ground that the property was already sold or there is no title to the executants. He also relied upon two judgments of the learned single Judges of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.14610 of 2014 dated 27.06.2014 and W.P.(MD).No.11426 of 2018 dated 02.07.2018. In those cases, when similar issue were raised, the learned Judges quashed the orders and directed the registration authorities to register the documents.

5. Mr.T.M.Pappaiah, leaned Special Government Pleader would submit that only to prevent the fraudulent deeds especially, sale deeds being executed by strangers to knock away the property of innocent owners, a circular has been issued by the Inspector General of Registration on 25.04.2012, directing the registering authorities to conduct enquiry before the registration by calling upon the parties to produce the original deeds in respect of which is sought to the registered. He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.229 of 2018 dated 17.07.2019 in P.Rukumani and 4 others Vs. Amuthavalli and others in which the Division Bench of this Court categorically held that if there is any disputes about the rights of the parties involved, the only appropriate remedy for the parties is to approach the ci