Registration Act are bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Furnishing or non-furnishing of certain particulars while registering the documents etc., fall within the duties of the registering authorities who are expected to be guided by the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. In P.Narasimha Reddy and another Vs. Sub-Registrar, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R.District and another it was held that the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a document on the strength of a memo addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In Sub-Registrar Vs. K.Rama Krishna Raju a Division Bench of this Court also expressed the same view. In Chenna Reddy Vs. District Collector, Kurnool , a similar case like the one on hand, the same view was expressed by a learned single Judge of this Court. In Krishna Gopal Kataria Vs. State of Punjab it was held that the Registration Act is a complete Code by itself and the powers of the Registrars and the Sub-Registrars are clearly defined by demarking and the Inspector General of Registration under Section 69 can only exercise general superintendence over all the Registrars under the Act and make Rules consistent with the provisions of the Act providing for matters mentioned therein and Sections 21, 23, 28, 32, 35 and 74 authorise the SubRegistrar to refuse registration if the documents are not properly executed or presented or the subject matter of the document lay beyond the territorial jurisdiction and nothing in the Act authorized either the State Government or the Registrar to instruct the Sub-Registrar not to register a document, where the State Government and the Registrar in turn instructed the Sub-Registrar not to register sale deeds or lease deeds in respect of properties belonging to religious charitable institutions. The decision of the Division Bench of Madras
