B.P. Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 8th January 1987 in Writ Petition No. 5427/1983 whereby he dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein and one other (since deceased) seeking quashing of the endorsement Annexure-D by the Sub-Registrar, whereby he refused to register the Trust Deed executed a Trustee of Sri Raghavendra Swamigalu Brindavanam Trust, K.M. Puram, Mysore, for the reason that the Registrar of Societies, Mysore, has by his order dated 31-12-1982 prohibited him from registering the said document. The Writ Petitioners also challenged the notice issued by the Registrar of Societies, Mysore, calling upon the Secretary to explain why for the charges noted in the said notice, action should not be taken for appointment of an Administrator to the said Institution. The learned Single Judge by his impugned order dismissed the Writ Petition.
2. The facts of the case are not in dispute:
A Society called Sri Raghavendra Swamy Deva-sthanam Constructions and Managing Committee was registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act 3 of 1904 on 4th of July 1975. The said Society is administered by the Sri Raghavendraswamy Mutt. The Society had 75 members. On 26-2-1982 at a Meeting of the General Body of the Society, a majority of Members present unanimously passed a resolution dissolving the Society and resolved to form a Trust. Accordingly, the Trust Deed was drafted and executed, which was presented for registration before the first respondent, namely the Sub-Registrar. The first respondent by his order dated 2-3-1983 refused to accept the document for registration on the direction of the Registrar of Societies, Mysore District, Mysore, by order dated 31-12-1982. It appears that 10 Members of the Society had filed an application to the Registrar of Societies on 30th December, 1982 bringing to his notice certain irregularities in the affairs of the Society,
3. The petitioners in the Writ Petition contended that the Registrar of Societies could not hold an enquiry on the basis of complaint made to him by only 10 Members of the Society since they did not constitute not less than 1/3rd of the total membership. It was, therefore, submitted that the holding of an enquiry into the affairs of the Society, which was the reason why the Registrar of Societies directed the Sub-Registrar not to register the Trust Deed, was wholly Illegal since such an enquiry could be ordered only on the application of not less than 1/3rd of the Members of the Society. Secondly, it was contended that even assuming that an enquiry was in progress, that by itself did not authorise the Registrar of Societies to issue any direction to the Sub-Registrar, requiring him not to register a particular document if it was otherwise validly presented in accordance with law. Similarly, it was urged the Sub-Registrar could not refuse to register a document if it was presented before him and the provisions of the Registration Act were duly complied with by the executant.
4. The learned Single Judge, who heard the Writ Petition did not concur with the view taken by the other learned Single Judge in MAHILA SEVA SAMAJ AND ANR. v. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND ORS 1980(1) KLJ 327. But even so, he took the view that since the Registrar had acted suo motu, it was not necessary to investigate as to whether on the complaint less than 1/3rd Members of the Society, the Registrar could have ordered an enquiry. He further held that since there was a Resolution to dissolve the Society, the properties of the Society could not have been transferred to the trust according to Section 23 of the Act. On this ground, the learned Single Judge found justification in the action of the Registrar of Societies directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the Trust Deed as it was contrary to Section 23 of the Act.
5. In so far as the first question is concerned, we may notice a recent decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3585 of 1988, disposed of on 27-7-1990 Kupparaju v. General Secretary: : ILR1990KAR3721 wherein the correctness of the decision in Manila Seva Samaj's case was questioned. A Division Bench of this Court held that Manila Seva Samaj's case laid down the law correctly. It therefore follows that unless the complaint is made by not less than 1/3rd of the total lumber of Members of the Society, the Registrar cannot take any action thereon, otherwise, the Section would be rendered nugatory if on the basis of such complaint, he were to hold an enquiry. In view of the Decision of the Division Bench, it must be held that Annexure-F issued by the Registrar of Societies was without jurisdiction. We accordingly quash Annexure-F. We, however, make it clear that the quashing of Annexure-F win not in any way present the Registrar of Societies from issuing an appropriate show cause notice in accordance with law.
6. Coming to the next question as to whether the Registrar of Societies could have issued a direction to the Sub-Registrar not to register a particular document, learned Counsel for the respondents - 3 to 5, 7 and 10, could not point out any provision either in the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 or the Rules framed thereunder or in the Registration Act, 1908, which authorised the Registrar of Societies to make such a direction. We also find no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 which obliges the Sub-Registrar to act upon any such direction and/or to investigate at the stage of registration of a document itself, the title of the party executing the document. We are, therefore of the view that if a document is presented for registration by the executant, and in doing so, the executant complies with all the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, it is not open to the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of the document unless he exercises that discretion pursuant to any provision in the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law or Rule having the force of law. The mere registration of a document is by itself not a proof of its validity, neither does it follow that the executant had title to the property, he seeks to dispose of under the document. Matters such as relating to title have to be decided before the appropriate forum. If any person is interested in contending that any particular document executed and registered under the Registration Act, 1908 is invalid or illegal for any reason whatsoever, he !s certainly at liberty to question the validity of the document, the title of the executant, and such other questions before the proper forum in an appropriate proceeding. Similarly, if it is sought to be contended in the instant case that the Trust Deed has been executed in contravention of the provision of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 any person aggrieved may challenge the validity of the Trust Deed in a duly constituted proceeding. There is, however, no warrant for the proposition that the registration of the document itself can be prevented by directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the document. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the direction issued by the Registrar of Societies to the Sub-Registrar was competent and consequently Annexure-D was also valid.
7. In the result, we allow this Appeal and quash Annexure-D and F. We, however, make it clear that the quashing of these two Annexures does not in any manner prevent the Registrar of Societies from issuing a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law, nor shalI it prevent any person interested from challenging the legality and validity of the Trust Deed, which is sought to be registered. All questions relating to the legality and validity of the Trust Deed may be considered when challenged, on their own merit in appropriate proceedings. This order shall not in any way prejudice the rights of any party, who may be interested in challenging the legality and validity of the Trust Deed, for we have expressed no opinion on such questions.
8. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.