The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority's discretion in demanding original documents for property registration and the importance of verifying property titles.

V.Parthiban, J.

The petitioner has approached the respondent and presented a settlement deed for registration in favour of his son in respect of the property owned by him in Survey No.651/1A, measuring an extent of 67 Cents, situated in Avaniyapuram Village, Madurai South Taluk. According to the petitioner, he purchased the said property on 17.02.1960. However, the respondent refused to register the document and issued a check slip saying that the document could not be registered, since the original sale deed was not produced for inspection. The said action on the part of the respondent is put to challenge in this writ petition.

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was not having original of the sale deed, dated 17.02.1960, however, he obtained a certified copy of the same on 09.05.1990 and therefore, he requested the respondent to accept the certified copy of the sale deed and register the settlement deed presented before him for registration. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said certified copy of the sale deed has been submitted in the civil proceedings pending before the Munsif Court and Sub Court, Madurai and the said certified copy of the sale deed had been treated on par with the original sale deed. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Civil Courts have accepted the said certified copy of the sale deed and endorsed its authenticity. However, despite the above facts, the respondent refused to register the document only on the ground that original sale deed was not made available.

3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. In the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the Inspector General of Registration has issued Circulars, dated 07.06.2018 and 13.06.2018 and by which, the Registering Authority has to ensure the proper ownership of the property concerned before registering any document. In furtherance of the directions given in these Circulars, the Registering Authority demanded production of the original sale deed, which gave title to the subject property and in the absence of production of the original sale deed, the Registering Authority has rightly refused to register the document.

4. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that similar directives issued by the Government were examined by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.710 to 713 of 2010 and the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment, dated 18.11.2013, has upheld such directives. In the said circumstances, when any doubt arises as to the title of the property, which is covered under the document presented for registration, it is always open to the Registering Authority to insist upon the production of original title deed for inspection purpose and only on being satisfied with the genuinity of the same, further action would be taken towards registration of the document. In the instant case, admittedly the original sale deed has not been produced in order to substantiate the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent has rightly refused to register the document.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the Circulars issued by the Inspector General of Registration are contrary to the very Scheme of the Registration Act and Rules. According to him, only on certain contingencies as listed under Rule 22 of the Registration Rules (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Rules’), the Authority concerned can refuse to register the document. However, it is not open to the Authority to refuse to register the document on any other grounds other than what are mentioned under Rule 22 of the Rules. He would draw the attention of this Court to the six contingencies enumerated under Rule 22 of the Rules, which are extracted hereunder:

"(i) if the document is presented in the wrong office;

(ii) if an agent has come