The Registering Officer must verify original documents for property registration to prevent fraud, and parties claiming rights must establish their claims before a competent court.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The writ appellant is the third party in the writ proceedings instituted by the respondents 1 to 3. Leave granted by this Court to the writ appellant, to challenge the order dated 14.07.2022 passed in WP No.17956 of 2022.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 instituted writ proceedings challenging the refusal slip issued by the fourth respondent-Sub Registrar in proceedings dated 29.06.2022, refusing to register the Sale Deed presented by the respondents 1 to 3. The order of refusal issued under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, was under challenge before the Writ Court.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 presented the Sale Deed on 27.06.2022 before the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret, Puducherry for registration.

4. On perusal of the documents and records, the Sub Registrar found that the presentant Tmt.Pushpavathi, D/o.Devanathan, Thiru D.Velavan and Thiru D.Kabilan, S/o.Devanathan. have not submitted the Original Donation Deed registered on 28.11.1936 in R.V.63 No.8 and also Encumbrance Certificate for the said property from 29.11.1936 to till date. Since the right to register the Sale Deed was not established by the presentant, the Sub Registrar refused to register the same.

5. The learned Single Judge agreed with the submission of the respondents 1 to 3 that production of certified copy of title documents would be sufficient for registration and accordingly set aside the refusal slip and directed the Registering Officer to register the Sale Deed by accepting the certified copy of the title documents, if produced.

6. Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that they are the absolute owners of the subject property. The appellant is having title deeds from the year 1927 onwards. Several litigations are pending in respect of the subject property and some other persons are also claiming right over the property.

7. In this context, the learned counsel for the writ appellant referred a portion of the findings made by the Sub Registrar in order dated 30.11.2022, which reads as under:-

"5(c) Gist of the reply M/s Selvaradjolou Chetty Turst:

The protest petitioner, the Selvaradjolou Chetty Turst, represented by its Chairman Thiru S. Kalyanam has replied that the subject mentioned property belongs to Tmt. Padmini Chandraseker as per the order of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Puducherry in O.S.No.6/1968 dated 29/04/1970. Further it is informed by the said Trust that already the claim of Tmt: Puspavathy was turned down by the Settlement officer-1 and advised to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title vide Proceedings No.2214/DOS/STI/23(1)/2010 dt 23/02/2010.

NOW THEREFORE, I, K.Manikandan, Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Oulgaret in compliance with the order of Hon'ble High Curt of Judicature, Madras in WP No.17956 of 2022 and to the Contempt Petition No.2551 of 2022, hereby order that for the reasons well elucidated above, refuse the registration of the Sale Deed document presented on 27.06.2022 in respect of the property under R.S.No.158/2A Cadastre No.1318 Pt., 1318 BIS Pt, 38-Saram Revenue Village by Tmt.Pushpavathi and two others and thereby the presentants are advised to approach the Competent Civil Court to decide their title."

8. Relying on the above findings, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondents 1 to 3 filed writ petition without even impleading the necessary parties. Therefore, the present writ appeal is to be allowed by setting aside the order impugned.

9. Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, would submit that the original title documents are not with the respondents 1 to 3. When it is impossible for the presentant of the documents to produce the original documents, the Registering Officer cannot insist upon the presentant to produce the same. Therefore, the Writ Court has rightly considered the issues and the writ appeal is to be dismissed. The writ appellant has