@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharmaw
1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 03.07.2007 passed by
the Sub Registrar, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District refusing to register the sale deed presented for registration.
2. The petitioner purchased the land to the extent of 6.13 acres situated in Old S.No. 431, R.S.No. 847/1,2,3 Uthiyur Village, Kangayam Taluk,
Tiruppur district from one G. Samboornam, W/o V. Govindaraj in the year 2005. The documents were presented for registration, but it was not
registered and returned to the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that originally the said land was given as Ryothwari patta in favour of one Subramani Mudaliar as per proceedings
of the Settlement Tahsildar II, Erode dt.06.03.1970. The temple called as Uthandavelayuthaswamy Temple preferred an appeal, but the appeal
was rejected as Ryothwari patta had attained finality.
4. The land was purchased by one Muthusamy Gounder from Subramania Mudaliar and in the year 1959, the land was partitioned among the sons
of Muthusamy Gounder and M.Palanisamy 3 Gounder by way of registered partition deed.
5. Thiru Palaniswamy Gounder sold the land in favour of one G.Samboornam on 03.06.1994 which was duly registered, and the property was
sold to the property to the petitioner which was presented for registration. The first respondent has refused to register the same.
6 The order has been challenged by the petitioner, on the ground that the Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of the document
presented for registration, once identity of the person presenting is not disputed.
7 The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the registering authority can only make enquiry as envisaged under Sec. 34 of
the registration act, and once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of the
document presented for registration.
8 It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is not open to the Sub Registrar to go into the question of title of the
property, if the executant of the sale deed admits due execution of the documents presented for registration. The learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in law, being without jurisdiction.
9 I find that the writ petition is not competent, as the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of statutory appeal under Sec. 72 of the
registration Act, 1908. The order passed in appeal can further be challenged by way of civil suit under Sec. 77 of the registration Act, 1908.
10 In view of the statutory provisions of Registration Act and further in view of the availability of statutory appeal, writ petition is dismissed with
liberty to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedy in accordance with law if so advised. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also
dismissed.
