ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order in Na.Ka.No.688/Aa1/2021, dated 11.04.2022 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.

2. Since no adverse order is being passed against the private respondents, notice to them respondents is dispensed with.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the properties belonged to Dhandapani Chettiar, who had three sons, namely, Subramanian, Chakrapani and Jayapal. The properties in dispute is between the legal heirs of Subramanian and his three sons. The eldest son Rajendran died without being married. The petitioner is the second son. The fifth respondent is the 3rd son and the respondents 3 and 4 are the widow and daughter of Subramanian. On 30.10.1963, Dhandapani Chettiar executed a WILL which was registered and it also transpires that he has executed another Will dated 17.09.1967 which does not seem to have been registered. The testator has not given any specific items to any beneficiary. He has mentioned the proportion in which the beneficiaries have to enjoy the benefits. The beneficiaries did not adhere to the recitals in the Wills. While so, the sons of Dhandapani Chettiar entered into a partition by means of a registered Partition Deed dated 27.08.1986. In the Partition Deed, the petitioner's father was allotted properties under "A" schedule. The allotment to his father includes three items, which are the subject matter of dispute. The petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 have filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 1996 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore, for partition and separate possession against his elder brother and others and the said suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the disputed properties were orally partitioned among the legal heirs as per the Compromise entered into between the parties. As per the oral partition, Item Nos. 1 and 3 in S.No.193/2 Ac.0.15 and S.No.193/4 Ac.0.35 fell to the petitioner's share, while item 2 in S.No.190/2 Ac.0.51 fell to the 5th respondent's share. The respondents 3 and 4 have no right in the properties. Pursuant to the oral partition which was contested by respondents 3 and 4 consented and in the interregnum, the 5th respondent has sold 51 cents to the 6th respondent under a registered sale deed on 12.08.2013. The 5th respondent and 2nd petitioner are in possession of the respective items, 6th respondent and the 2nd petitioner also have prescribed title by adverse possession and ouster as well. The respondents 3 and 4 are fully conscious that they will not succeed in the Civil Court and therefore, they have chosen to go before the first respondent/Registering Authorities for exercise of the powers vested in them. The third respondent is said to have given a petition dated 01.02.2022 to the first respondent/District Registrar complaining that respondents 3 and 4 also have a share in the aforesaid properties and questioning the sale deed dated 12.08.2013 between respondents 5 and 6 and the settlement deed dated 04.06.2018 executed by the first petitioner to the second petitioner, they had prayed for cancellation of the documents. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed an order in Na.Ka.No.688/Aa1/2021, dated 11.04.2022 holding that the transfers are invalid and prohibited registration of any document based on the aforesaid documents and granted permission to effect a partition. The first respondent, or any registering authority, for that matter, is not competent to decide about the validity of a transaction. There is no provision in the Registration Act empowering registering authorities to decide title. They are not competent to decide title. In this case, the first respondent has referred Circulars in No.41530/U1/2017, dated 20.10.2017 and 08.11.2017 issued by the Inspector General of Registration and not based upon the decision in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2016 (10) SCC 767, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the registering authorities have no juris