O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 05.07.2022 vide proceedings Na.Ka.No. 2344/A2/2022 and quash the same.

2. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the subject property originally belongs to one A.R.S.Ramalingam. He has filed a suit in O.S.No.541 of 2009 for declaration and other reliefs in respect of the subject land. During the pendency of the suit, he has sold the property to one Raj to an extent of 77 cents through a registered sale deed dated 19.02.2013. After purchase, the said Raj also impleaded as one of the plaintiff in the suit. The suit came to be decreed on 06.07.2015. Though it was an exparte decree, an application, taken by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree, was dismissed by the trial Court. As against which, the defendant has filed a civil revision petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.1376 of 2021, which was also dismissed by this Court by an order dated 20.04.2023 and liberty was granted to the parties to file an application under Section 152 of C.P.C. In the meanwhile, the third respondent has given a complaint to the District Registrar stating that he has a title to the property. According to him, the vendor of the petitioner has purchased only 60 cents out of 77 cents held by Ramalingam. Therefore, he sold the excess land. Hence, he seeks to cancel the document. The District Registrar entertained the complaint and held an enquiry and passed the impugned order to the effect that the sale in favour of the petitioner is a fradulent one. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

3. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

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 reported in (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 W.P.No.29706 of 2022 [G.Rajasulochana Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others] 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 Regi