1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a demand made by the Sub Registrar, Subramaniyapuram, who is the third respondent herein, calling upon the petitioner to produce the revenue records and the 10(1) chitta issued by the Tahsildar to complete the formality of registration of a Sale Deed presented by her.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

3. Four persons by name P.Panneerselvam, T.Balasubramaniyan, T.Muthu Ramalingam and T.Sathiyamoorthy of Rathinasinthamani village executed a Sale Deed dated 23.6.2011, conveying the land of an extent of 36 cents in Survey Nos.364/14, 364/15A and 364/15B, Arasarkulam, West Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai. The Sale Deed was presented for registration by the petitioner herein before the third respondent. But the third respondent returned the Sale Deed along with a memo dated 7.7.2011, calling upon the petitioner to produce (i) the revenue records standing in the name of the vendors and (ii) the order of the Tahsildar for the transfer of 10(1) chitta in favour of the petitioner herein. Challenging the demand so made by the third respondent, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

4. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the demand made by the third respondent is without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred by the Registration Act and the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a few decisions of this Court as well as the stand taken by the Inspector General of Registration in an earlier case before this Court, where he conceded that the Registering Authority has no power to probe into the validity of title of the executant of a document.

5. The third respondent has filed a counter contending that the first respondent viz., the Inspector General of Registration had already issued a circular bearing No.20564/C1/2007 dated 17.5.2007, directing the Registering Authorities to ensure that the details regarding previous transactions and patta find a place in Sale Deeds. The circular, according to the respondents, was issued to prevent fraudulent transactions. The first respondent has also relied upon the provisions of Sections 5,9 and 15 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, to sustain the demand made in the impugned order. Therefore, it is necessary to have a look at the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the Registration Rules, Tamil Nadu Registration Rules 1983 and the Tamil nadu Patta Pass Book Act.

THE ROLE OF THE REGISTERING OFFICER UNDER THE ACT:

6. Section 34 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 stipulates that a document shall not be registered unless the persons executing such document or their representatives appear before the Registering Officer within the time allowed for presentation. If the document so presented is for the sale of a property, the person claiming under the document should also appear before the Registering Officer, along with the executants. The appearance of all the executants and the person claiming under the document need not be simultaneous. They may appear at different times as it is permitted by subsection (2) of Section 34.

7. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 requires the Registering Officer to do two things viz., (i) to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons who claim to have executed the same and (ii) to satisfy himself as to the identity of those persons or to the right of the representatives to appear, if the document is presented by a representative.

8. Section 35 deals with the procedure to be followed when all persons executing the document appear before him and they either admit or deny the execution of the document. The enquiry to be conducted under Section 35 is also limited only to the question of finding out the identity of the parties and the admission or denial of execution of the document. The Registeri