Does Section 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908 empower a registering official to adjudicate title or fraud in a document presented for registration?

Paragraph 12Section 22-B gives the registration officials the power to refuse the registration of forged or prohibited documents upfront, whereas Section 77-A (prior to it being deemed as unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court), was designed to give District Registrars the power to cancel documents already registered if they violated Section 22-A or 22-B. Section 22-B acts as a shield before registration by enabling the Sub- Registrar to reject bogus, forged or legally prohibited transactions, whereas 77-A, prior to its repeal from the statute book, acted as a corrective tool after registration, empowering the District Registrar to conduct an enquiry and cancel a registered document found to be fraudulent contrary to Section 22-A and 22-B. Section 77-A of the Act was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kathirvel's case, for conferring excessive quasi-judicial powers on executive officials to adjudicate civil title and property disputes. The same principle applied by the Division Bench of this court in Kathirvel's case for testing the vires of section 77-A of the Registration Act, will have to be applied to Section 22-B of the Act as well. Only based on mere suspicion, the appellants have refused to register the General Power of Attorney presented by the respondent for registration. There is no undisputed and conclusive evidence available for coming to the conclusion that the Power of Attorney presented by the respondent for registration will fall under any of the categories of illegal documents provided under Section 22-B of the Registration Act.