ORDER :

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal Check Slip No.1 Joint Sub Registrar, Palayamkottai/14/2021, dated 27.02.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the document presented by the petitioners for registration without insisting for the production of the original parent document within the time fixed by this Court.

The case of the petitioners is that they are the joint owners of the dry land in S.No.311/1 situated in Keelanatham Village in Palayamkottai Taluk and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, on 26.02.2021 the petitioners executed a sale deed in favour of one Mathan for valuable consideration. In the said circumstances, when the petitioners presented the documents relating to the property for registration on 27.02.2021, the respondent has been refusing to register the same insisting upon the production of original parent deed.

2. The respondent refused to register the said document by the impugned refusal cheque slip No.RFL/1 Joint Sub Registrar, Palayamkottai/14/2021, dated 27.02.2021. 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 petitioners were 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 petitioners, this Court has consistently held that the Registering Authority cannot insist on production of original title deeds as a matter of pre-condition for registration of the documents. According to the Courts, such pre-condition is not provided in the statute.

4. Mr.L.Prabhakaran, who has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioners, 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) 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 5868 (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 docu