ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

28.03.2019 in reference No.5087/Aa2/2018 passed by the first respondent cancelling the document registered in favour of the petitioner in the year 2017 in Document Nos.522/2007, 2250/2017 and 665/2018.

2.It is the case of the writ petitioner that the his father and brother had executed settlement deeds in his favour vide Document Nos. 522/2007 and 2250/2017 in respect of their family property. Thereafter, the petitioner executed a memorandum of deposit of title deed in favour of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vide document No.665 of 2018. While that being so, the third respondent made a complaint alleging that the father of the petitioner had encroached upon his western side of the property and creating fake documents in that regard, settled the same in favour of his sons. Based on that complaint, after conducting enquiry, the first respondent by an order dated 28.03.2019 had cancelled the said documents.

3.The allegation made against the father of the petitioner is that while registering the settlement deed in favour of his sons, the father of the petitioner had wrongly mentioned the boundaries, thereby, the properties of the third respondent has also been included in the said settlement deed.

4.The learned counsel for the third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that without any valid right over the properties in question, the boundaries have been wrongly given with a view to encroach upon the properties of the third respondent. Hence, after verifying the parent documents, the settlement executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner and his brother, were cancelled.

5.At the outset, merely on the basis that wrong boundaries have been given by the father of the petitioner while executing the settlement deeds, the document cannot be cancelled. It is not the duty of the Registering Authorities to go into the title of the property. There can be differences in the boundaries also. The boundaries set out in the subsequent document and the earlier documents are made based on the actual enjoyment of the properties by the parties. Whether that has been made purposely to encroach upon the land of the others or not, is the matter of evidence. These facts cannot be looked into by the Registering Authorities. 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