The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registering authority does not have the power to adjudicate on the validity of a sale deed under Circular No.67 and should direct the parties to the civil court for such adjudication.

ORDER :

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 22.07.2016 in Na.Ka.No.891/A1/2016 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

The petitioner assails an order dated 22.07.2016 of the District Registrar, Madurai, by which the registration of sale deed dated 23.01.1976 was held to be invalid.

2. The petitioner states that land measuring 1 acre 91 cents in S.F.No.6/5 of Thargakudi Sub Village, Ayyapatti Village, Melur Taluk, originally belonged absolutely to one Nallathambi Konar. The said Nallathambi Konar had a daughter called Annapooranathammal and son also called Nallathambi Konar. The original owner of the land, Nallathambi Konar, died when his children had not attained adulthood. Annapooranathammal married one Valli Konar through whom she had two daughters, namely, Vallikannu, who is the wife of the petitioner, and Gomathy and one son, Chokkalingam, who is the fourth respondent herein.

3. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of a settlement deed dated 06.07.1947 allegedly executed by his vendor in favour of Annapooranathammal. According to the petitioner, the above mentioned properties, which were originally owned by Nallathambi Konar, remained in the possession of the son, who is also called Nallathambi Konar. It is further stated that all the revenue records stand in the name of Nallathambi Konar. According to the petitioner, Nallathamabi Konar sold the property to the petitioner on 23.01.1976 under Document No.76 of 1976. The said transaction was effected upon payment of valuable consideration. The petitioner further states that pursuant to such purchase, the patta was also mutated in favour of the petitioner.

4. In these facts and circumstances, it is stated that the fourth and fifth respondents, who were aware of the purchase of the property by the petitioner on 23.01.1976, issued a notice dated 29.05.2013 asserting their title over the property and stating that unless possession of the property was handed over to them, a civil suit would be filed. The said notice was replied to on 11.06.2013 denying their claim. This was followed by representations dated 30.01.2016 and 15.02.2016. Thereafter, W.P.(MD).No.10952 of 2016 was filed by the fifth respondent herein seeking consideration of the above mentioned representations. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22.06.2016 by which the respondents therein were directed to consider and dispose of the representations within three weeks. Upon receipt of such order, the second respondent conducted an enquiry and concluded that the sale deed registered on 23.01.1976 is not valid and consequently directed the Sub Registrar to make the necessary entries indicating that the registration is not valid. Hence, this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material documents, such as the sale deed dated 23.01.1976, the notice dated 29.05.2013, the reply dated 11.06.2013, the subsequent representations dated 30.01.2016 and 15.02.2016 and the order of the Court dated 22.06.2016. Thereafter, he invited my attention to the operative portions of the impugned order. In particular, he pointed out the observations in the impugned order to the effect that Tmt.Annapooranathammal may not have taken possession of the property, may not have paid kist and other taxes etc. He also pointed out that the second respondent recorded in the impugned order that he was over ruling the objection on the ground of limitation on the basis that Circular No.67 does not specify a period of limitation.

6. Thereafter, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable because the second respondent has effectively decided the question of title. According to learned counsel, Circular No.67 does not empower the registration authority to decide the question of title. In order to substantiate this content