The Registering Authority cannot cancel registered documents or decide title issues, as these matters must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the first respondent summoning the petitioner to appear for enquiry.

2. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner's contention is that he executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, namely, Ahamed Fasath, vide Doc No.979/2018 dated 30.04.2018 in respect of the subject property and revenue records has also been mutated in his name and now, he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While so, based on the application given by the second respondent, who is the daughter of the petitioner, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to appear for enquiry. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Registering Authority has no power to go into all these transactions. In Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , (2016) 10 SCC 767 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that power conferred on the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to cancel the registration of the document already registered. Sections 22-A and 22-B were inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2022 and Act 41 of 2022 respectively to prevent registration of certain category of the documents. Thereafter, Section 77-A has been brought by Act 41 of 2022 to cancel the document registered in contravention of Sections 22-A and 22-B not beyond it. Now, Section 77-A of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 also is struck down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10291 of 2022 batch as unconditional. Such being the position, this Court is of the definite view that the title cannot be decided by the Registering Authorities. These facts have been discussed by this Court in G. Rajasulochana Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others , W.P. No. 29706 of 2022 and the Order in the writ petition is as follows:

“... 3. It is relevant to note that the object of the law of registration is to provide public notice of the transaction embodied therein. The execution of documents and its validity, the right created or extinguished is governed by the substantive law namely the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The provisions contained in the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 relates to the factum of registration alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77 has held as follows:

“The Act only strikes at the documents and not at the transactions.

The whole aim of the Act is to govern documents and not the transactions embodied therein. Thereby only the notice of the public is drawn.”

4. The practice has been developed in the recent past in Tamil Nadu to entertain the applications given by the so-called affected parties to cancel all the documents under the pretext of either forgery or fradulent transactions. The Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu has brought out Circular No.67 dated 03.11.20211 to deal with the fraudulent registrations through impersonation. The said circular is mainly based on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of YanalaMalleshwari v. AnanthulaSayamma, AIR 2007 AP 57. However, the three bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 767 has held that the power of the Registrar, under the REGISTRATION ACT , is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. The same is extracted hereunder:

“34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered [State of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787]. Section 17 of the 1908 Act deals with do