IMPORTANT POINT
The registering authority must conduct an inquiry into objections regarding the identity and authority of parties presenting documents for registration, ensuring procedural integrity in the registration process.

ORDER :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in RC.No.130/e.sa.pa.II/2020 dated 21.05.2020 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to return the Rectification Deed dated 30.04.2020 presented by the petitioner before the first respondent as pending Document No.11/2020, on his file to the petitioner after the complete registration of the document and due endorsements thereon and certificate of registration within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2.K.S.P.Natarajan Trust was founded in the year 1956 (Document No.2566 of 1956 on the file of Sub Registrar, Tuticorin). The authors of the trust were K.S.Shanmugavel Nadar and his sons K.S.Ganapathi and K.S.Mariyappan and daughter-in-law / Mrs.N.Rajalakshmi Ammal. Copy of the trust deed dated 14.11.1956 has been enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the third respondent. It is seen therefrom that it is a public charitable trust.

3.It is not in dispute that Thiru.K.S.P.N.Rathinavel son of Mrs.Rajalakshmi Ammal is the present Managing Trustee of the trust. He along with his wife Poonkodi Rathinavel (co-opted trustee) and their daughters presented the deed of rectification dated 30.04.2020 amending the terms of the trust deed. The document was presented for registration on 21.05.2020.

4.Without registering the deed of rectification, the first respondent issued the impugned notice dated 21.05.2020 calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry since the second respondent herein, namely, N.Vairavel had filed a protest petition. Challenging the authority of the registering authority to hold such an enquiry, the present writ petition came to be filed.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. She relied on the following decisions of the Madras High Court:

i) M.Singaravelu Vs The District Registrar, Karur Registration Department, Karur & Others (W.P.(MD)No.10 of 2014)

ii) K.Guruchandran Vs. The Inspector General of Registration & Others reported in 2016 4 L.W. 953

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is that the registering authority lacks the jurisdiction to hold any enquiry in the matter. She drew my attention to Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 55 of the Registration Rules. She contended in the light of the aforesaid precedents that the authority or title of the petitioner to present the document in question cannot be challenged. If at all the private respondents have any grievance, their only remedy is to go before the jurisdictional civil Court. She called upon this Court to set aside the impugned notice and allow the writ petition as prayed for.

6.The respondents have filed counter affidavits and the learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent took me through their contents and called upon this Court to dismiss the writ petition. Their contention is basically two fold. Firstly, the petitioner cannot approach this Court at the notice stage. Secondly, the Registrar is not only entitled to but he is duty bound to conduct an enquiry into the objections raised by the private respondents. According to them, the impugned notice would very well fall within the scope of the power conferred under Rule 55 of the Registration Rules. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the followin