ORDER : R. Subbiah, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned memo in letter No. 429/13 dated 13.12.2013 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to register the document presented by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in Manavasi Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk and Karur District was originally owned and possessed by one Ramasamy by virtue of a registered settlement deed No. 325/1972 dated 10.02.1972 and registered sale deed No. 320/1972 dated 10.02.1972. The said Ramasamy executed a Will in favour of her daughter, namely, one Visila, dated 21.11.1988, to which, patta was also granted. The said Visila executed a registered power of attorney No. 351 of 2004 dated 26.07.2004 in favour of her biological brother R. Murali, who in turn registered a sale deed No. 1162/2004 dated 27.08.2004 in favour of one Periyasamy. Further, the said periyasamy executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner formed a lay out under the name and style of S.S. Garden Extension after obtaining approval from Manavasi Village Panchayat. Out of 186 plots, the petitioner sold out 70 plots. While so, it is alleged that the said Visila in collusion with her brother Murali started claiming vexatious right in respect of the properties purchased by the petitioner as if she has not at all executed the aforesaid power deed in favour of her brother Murali. Subsequently, the said Visila filed a suit in O.S. No. 219 of 2012 for declaration of her title to the property comprised in S.F. No. 175/2 measuring to an extent of Ac. 9.38 cents for the consequential relief of recovery of possession against the said Murali and others. Similarly, the son of the said Murrali, namely, one Kirushandan also filed a suit in O.S. No. 229 of 2012 against Murali, Visila, Periyasamy and others for partition of the suit properties in respect of Ac. 9.38 cents. 2. 9.38 cents for the consequential relief of recovery of possession against the said Murali and others. Similarly, the son of the said Murrali, namely, one Kirushandan also filed a suit in O.S. No. 229 of 2012 against Murali, Visila, Periyasamy and others for partition of the suit properties in respect of Ac. 9.38 cents. 2. While the situation stood thus, the said Visila filed another suit in O.S. No. 19 of 2013 against the petitioner and his vendor Periyasamy for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with her alleged right over the suit properties in question either by creating any alienation, mutation or encumbrance or any type in respect of the suit properties in question without due process of law. 3. Further, the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S. No. 130 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulitalai against Visila, Murali and Kirushandan for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties therein. It is the specific case of the petitioner that when the competent court has already been seized of the matter, the present impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent stating that the matter is seized by the third respondent and therefore, the document of the petitioner cannot be registered. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the impugned memo came to be issued due to the receipt of the objection received from the Anti Land Grabbing Cell. By stating so, the second respondent prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. I have heard the submissions made by the parties concerned and perused the materials available on record. 6. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is not res integra. A close reading of the Rule 55 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 right and ownership of the seller. Thus, the authority concerned are bound to act only in accordance with Act and Rules framed thereunder. Rule 55 does not provide enquiry by the Registering Officer with regard to the right and ownership of the seller. Thus, the authority concerned are bound to act only in accordance with Act and Rules framed thereunder. Time and again, this Court as well as the Supreme Court has held that the Registering authority has no power to refuse to register the documents unless it is prohibited by the competent Civil Court. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there are suits and counter suits between the parties to establish their rights. Though the rival claimants have rightly instituted suits, they have not obtained any interim order in their favour so as to restraining the second respondent herein from the registering the documents in question. In the absence of the said interim order, the second respondent cannot refuse the documents on the strength of the instruction issued by the third respondent, namely, the Inspector, Anti-land grabbing Special Cell, Karur. Therefore, the reason assigned by the second respondent fell through. 7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the Registering authority cannot refuse to register the document unless they demonstrate that registration of document would be contrary to public policy or in violation of applicable law. Such is not the case on hand here. Therefore, when the Registering Authority itself has no power to refuse the register the document, I have no hesitation to hold that the third respondent cannot prevent the second respondent from registering the documents presented by the petitioner in any manner. Therefore, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is liable to be set aside. In the result, the order impugned dated 13.12.2013 stands set aside and consequently, this Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. Further, the second respondent is directed to register the documents of the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.