ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order, dated 4.4.2012 passed by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to release gift settlement deed executed by the petitioner on 19.3.2012 in favour of his wife S. Jeyalakshmi under Document No. P.48/2012 which was registered by the first respondent on 19.3.2012. 2. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land in S. No. 2/3 bearing patta No. 560 measuring to an extent of 0.97.0 acres (2 acres 40 cents) which has been purchased from P. Selvi and M. Bose under a registered sale deed dated 27.11.2006 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/-. From the date of purchase of the said punja land, the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property. After the purchase of the property, patta has been transferred in the name of the petitioner by the Tahsildar by proceedings dated 5.6.2007 and patta has also been issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is paying kist for the said land. Whileso, the petitioner had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife S. Jeyalakshmi. The said document was presented before the first respondent on 19.3.2012 for registration. Though the said document was registered by the first respondent as per law, he refused to return the document to the petitioner stating that there was a dispute with regard to the title of the property as somebody has given a petition to him. It is further stated that when the petitioner asked for a copy of the said petition, he gave document number as P. No. 48 of 2012. Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 3.4.2012 to the respondent to return the registration gift settlement deed executed by him in favour of his wife. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 5009 of 2012 to direct the first respondent therein to release the gift settlement deed dated 19.3.2012. In the said writ petition, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the representation of the petitioner was considered and a reply was sent by a letter dated 4.4.2012. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 5009 of 2012 to direct the first respondent therein to release the gift settlement deed dated 19.3.2012. In the said writ petition, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the representation of the petitioner was considered and a reply was sent by a letter dated 4.4.2012. In the said letter, it was mentioned by the first respondent that there was an objection from one advocate T. Selvam for registering the said document quoting a judgment passed in O.S. No. 135 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai. In view of the same, the first respondent proposed to summon the petitioner under Rule 55 of the Registration Rules of the Registration Act 1908 for enquiry. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has no authority to issue summon calling upon the petitioner to explain about the civil litigation and the right of the parties. The power under Rule 55 of the Registration Rules is restricted and the first respondent need not satisfy himself about the validity of title of a person applying for registration of the document; if he is satisfied that it was really executed by the concerned person, then he should not refuse to register the same. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed for the relief stated supra. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has purchased 2 acres 40 cents of land in and by sale deed dated 27.11.2006 in S. No. 2/3 from P.Selvi and M.Bose. Patta has also been issued in favour of the petitioner. On 19.3.2012, the petitioner made gift deed in favour of his wife on the stamp paper to the value of Rs. 10,000/- and presented before the office of the first respondent. But, the first respondent has refused to register the document and hence the petitioner herein filed W.P.(MD) No. 5009 of 2012 for Mandamus , directing the first respondent to release the gift settlement deed executed by the petitioner on 19.3.2012 in favour of his wife S. Jeyalakshmi under document No. P.48 of 2012 which was registered on 19.3.2012. But, the first respondent has refused to register the document and hence the petitioner herein filed W.P.(MD) No. 5009 of 2012 for Mandamus , directing the first respondent to release the gift settlement deed executed by the petitioner on 19.3.2012 in favour of his wife S. Jeyalakshmi under document No. P.48 of 2012 which was registered on 19.3.2012. In the said writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent stating that they have received objection from one T. Selvam stating that the suit has been filed in O.S. No. 135 of 2009 to declare the sale deed dated 27.11.2002 as null and void. The said suit was filed by one T. Chandrasekaran as against M.M. Ambalam who is the power agent of the petitioner’s vendor’s vendor. The respondents are not party to the said suit. The petitioner had purchased the said property from his vendor in the year 2006 itself and thereafter, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property for the past 6 years. In the said circumstances, the act of the respondents in refusing to release the document based on some legal notice sent by advocate T. Selvam is not proper. Moreover, the respondents can make enquiry with regard to the release of document only within the frame of the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder particularly with reference to Rule 55 relating to enquiry before the registration which speaks about what is not the duty the Registration Officer. Under Rule 55, the respondent has no authority to make enquiry if there is any dispute to the title and only the Civil Court can decide the title. Therefore, the order dated 4.4.2012 passed by the first respondent is not legally sustainable. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that as per circular No. 33/C1/2010, dated 15.9.2010 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, the Registering Officers have been instructed to keep the document pending when a protest petition is presented as to the ownership of the property and only after due enquiry the Registering Officer has to decide whether to admit the registration of the document or to refuse to register the document and therefore, no infirmity could be found in the notice dated 4.4.2012 issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry. 5. 5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. From the submission, it can be understood that the first respondent is keeping the document pending since the first respondent issued a notice stating that in a civil suit in O.S. No. 135 of 2009 by one Chandrasekaran as against M.M. Ambalam to declare sale deed dated 27.11.2002 executed by one Assema Beevi and his sons registered as document No. 2570 of 2002 in the office of the Sub Registrar Office, Madurai North in respect of the suit property as null and void. In the said suit, a decree was passed in favour of the said Chandrasekaran. Thus, in the legal notice received by the respondent, the title of the property was disputed. Since the said Chandrasekaran raised a dispute with regard to the title of the property, the first respondent kept the document pending. But according to the petitioner, the said Chandrasekarn has filed a suit as against the power agent of the vendor’s vendor of the petitioner in the year 2002 but whereas the petitioner purchased the property in the year 2006. Thereafter, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property for the past 6 years. When a person disputes the title, the same cannot be enquired by the registering authority under Rule 55. Hence, it would be appropriate to extract Rule 55 which reads as follows:- “Rule 55. It forms no part of a registering officer’s duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:- (a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be; (b) that the document is forged; (c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity; (d) that the executing party is not legally dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration; or (e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic”. 7. 7. Therefore, a close reading of the said Rule would show that the registering authority is bound to consider the objection only on the ground which is stated in the said Rule. Rule 55 does not provide enquiry by the Registering Officer with regard to the ownership of the seller. Therefore, the authorities concerned are bound to act only in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed there under. The submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Registering Officers have been instructed to keep the document pending when a protest petition is presented as to the ownership of the property and only after due enquiry the Registering Officer has to decide whether to admit the registration of the document or to refuse is not legally sustainable. Hence, I do not find any justification in keeping the document pending by the first respondent. Under such circumstances, the letter issued by the first respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to register the sale deed dated 19.3.2012 and release the same, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed.