P.JEGANATHAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed at the instance of purchasers of immovable property from one Rajathi Ammal, wife of K.Marimuthu Pillai. The disputes centred around a Will said to have been executed by Marimuthu Pillai on 6/1/1985, the relinquishment of legacy executed by Maruthamuthu Pillai in favour of Rajathi Ammal on 5/7/1985 and the sale deeds executed by Rajathi Ammal in favour of the petitioners in the year 1990. It is not in dispute that the property is originally belonged to one Marimuthu Pillai who had executed a Will on 7/4/1983, according to the private respondents bequeathing the property to the fourth respondent and appointing his nephew Maruthamuthu Pillai to perform those charities or to be in administration of the properties. The Will also contains a prohibition against alienation. This Will was disputed by the wife of the executant, namely, Rajathi Ammal and at the panchayat, the legatee relinquished the legacy. Therefore, claiming that the property has vested in her as a wife of Marimuthu Pillai, she executed the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. These sale deeds came to be executed in the year 1990.

(2.) After the introduction of Sec. 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity "the Act"), the fourth respondent temple lodged a complaint with the District Registrar claiming that the property belongs to it and that the sale deeds executed in Parasala, Kerala, are fraudulent documents and therefore, they have to set aside. On receipt of the complaint, the District Registrar issued notices to the petitioners requiring them to appear. These notices are the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions. The Writ Court, chose to dismiss the writ petitions on the ground that the Registrar has the power to conduct an inquiry and decide on the validity of the sale deeds. It is this order of the Writ Court is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.

(3.) We have heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.N.Krishnaveni, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent.