Judgment :- 1. The petitioners father owned land to an extent of 7.68 acres in S.No.158/1, Neriparichal Village, Tiruppur Taluk and District. He died in the year 1973 leaving behind him, his wife, viz., the mother of the petitioner, and two sons and three daughters as his legal heirs. The petitioner is one of the sons. After the demise of his father, his mother and three sisters, executed a release deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother on 05.11.1975 and the same was registered in the office of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners brother entered into a sale agreement on 09.01.1993 with the petitioner to sell his share. But, the petitioners brother failed to execute the sale deed. 2. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.292 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur. The Sub Court decreed the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.152 of 1993. In those circumstances, the Sub Court, Tiruppur executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 10.12.1993 in respect of his brothers share. 3. While so, the petitioners mother filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 1994 for partition on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur, against the petitioner and his brother. The said suit was dismissed for default on 23.04.1996. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioners mother executed a release deed in document Nos.7706 of 2009 to 7708 of 2009 in favour of the petitioners sisters and the documents have been registered in the office of the respondent. 5. The petitioner made a representation dated 14.05.2010 to the respondent seeking to cancel the document Nos.7706 of 2009 to 7708 of 2009 that were registered by his mother in favour of his sisters, settling the properties in their favour. 6. Since no order was passed by the respondent on the petitioners representation dated 14.05.2010, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent to dispose of his representation dated 14.05.2010. 7. Notice of motion was ordered on 06.07.2010. 8. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 9. Under the Indian Registration Act 1908, the Registrar need not enquire into the title of the property, while registering a document. Furthermore, once a Registrar completes the process of Registration, he becomes functus offico. 8. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 9. Under the Indian Registration Act 1908, the Registrar need not enquire into the title of the property, while registering a document. Furthermore, once a Registrar completes the process of Registration, he becomes functus offico. That is, after registering a document, the Registrar cannot cancel or modify the document on his own, as it is without his jurisdiction. 10. Hence, the prayer sought for by the petitioner could not be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.