ORDER :

V. Parthiban, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has a share in the joint family property inherited from his father. According to the petitioner, one of his brothers has illegally detained the original title deed in respect of the joint property and was not willing to make use of the same for the purpose of selling the shares of each one of the siblings including the petitioner herein. In the said circumstances, when the petitioner presented the documents relating to the property for registration, the respondent has been refusing to register the same insisting upon the production of original parent deed.

2. In one such attempt to register the document, the petitioner presented a power of attorney in favour of one Malathi situated at Karaikudi relating to the property belonging to the petitioner. The respondent refused to register the said document by the impugned refusal cheque slip No. RFL/1/167/2020 dated 10.12.2020. The refusal of the respondent is only on the basis of the fact that the parental document has not been produced for perusal of the authority.

3. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, had issued a circular dated 15.09.2010, which requires the production of original title deeds to the authority concerned for the purpose of registration. However, according to the petitioner, this Court has consistently held that the Registering Authority cannot insist on production of original title deeds as a matter of precondition for registration of the documents. According to the Courts, such pre-condition is not provided in the statute.

4. Mr. M. Mahaboob Athiff, who has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner, would reiterate the above facts and also would drew the attention of this Court to three decisions of this Court, which read as under:-

(i) 2011-2-L.W.648 (K.S. Vijayendran Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, and others). The observation of the learned Single Judge of this Court reads as under:-

"10. None of the provisions of the Act or the Rules contemplate the Registrar to require the party appearing before him for presenting document to produce the original title deeds relating to the property so as to satisfy himself about the ownership of the executant in respect of the property sought to be executed."

(ii) (Lakshmi Ammal Vs. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Villivakkam, Chennai and others).

In the above case also, the learned Single Judge of this Court has clearly held that insistence on production of original title deeds through the circular dated 25.11.2012 was found to be not having any statutory force, in view of the absence of any provision in the Act. The observation of the learned Single Judge is extracted hereunder:-

"4. ........... Further, the petitioner also produced the encumbrance certificate from 1987 till date showing nil encumbrance. When the petitioner insisted upon a written order, the impugned order was passed by relying upon a circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, dated 25.11.2012 and stated that since the petitioner did not produce the original sale deed, dated 07.09.2011, the settlement deed cannot be admitted for registration. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

............

10. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of the first respondent dated 05.09.2012 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. The first respondent is directed to register the deed of release on presentation by the petitioner in respect of the property in question. He is directed to register the document on the date of presentation without making the parties to run from pillar to post. He is also directed to do so on receipt of the order copy from this Court or on production of the same. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

(iii) (C. Moorthy