The registration authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes and must defer to civil courts for resolution of property ownership issues.

(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The writ order dated 23.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.36246 of 2024 is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

2. The complex facts and circumstances with reference to several registered documents as narrated by the Writ Court in the order impugned would indicate that the title dispute exists between the parties. In this context, it is relevant to consider the findings made by the Writ Court in writ order, which reads as under:

“22. When the first respondent dealt with the appeal filed by respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent wanted to verify the correlation of the paimash number with the survey number. Accordingly, a report was called for from the Tahsildar, Vandalur Taluk and the RDO, Tambaram. They had given a report stating that there is no such old paimash No.164/2/3 and that the only paimash number available is 163/3B1, which correlates to S.No.53/16.

23. Surprisingly, in this case, either in the decree dated 30.6.1964 in O.S.No.346 of 1964 or in the sale deed dated 17.11.1983, no paimash number has been referred to and the entire description of the subject properties is not available with the boundaries. For the first time, such a correlation was attempted to be made by the petitioner when the settlement deed was executed in her favour on 09.7.2014. Paimash No.164/2/3, which is relied upon by the petitioner, is not able to be correlated to new paimash No.163/3B1 and the subsequent S.No.53/16. Therefore, there is a fundamental issue on the identity of the property in question.

24. .......... 25. .......... 26. .......... 27. ..........

28. What is evident from the materials available on record is that multiple documents were executed and registered pertaining to S.No.53/16. The petitioner is claiming right and title in a particular manner and the second respondent is also claiming right and title in a different manner. There is yet another set of documents, which now stand in the name of the said Mr.Sushil Lalwani. All these confusions cannot be resolved in this writ petition and it requires letting in evidence and appreciation of evidence, which can be done only before the competent civil court.

29. As held by the Hon-ble Apex Court in the case of S.P.Velayutham , this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction in the instant case since there are very many disputed questions of fact involved. This Court does not find any gross violation on the part of the Registering Authority, which will shock the conscience of this Court. Hence, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. It is left open to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent civil court and seek for appropriate relief and the civil court shall deal with the claim made by both parties on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the orders of either the Registering Authority or the Revenue Authorities or this Court.”

3. The District Registrar or the Inspector General of Registration are not empowered to cancel the sale deeds, in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of M.Kathirvel vs. Inspector General of Registration 1, wherein, Section 77A has been struck down. That apart, the Registration Department authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes. They can only consider the documents for the purpose of registration under the Registration Act , 1908. Contrarily, they cannot grant any declarations in respect of the civil rights of the parties, so also the Revenue Authorities under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act , 1983. All such issues are to be resolved before the Competent Civil Court of Law.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the order of the Dis