IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No. 23859 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.22854 & 22855 of 2022

1.Poongothai

2.S.Raghavarathani

3.T.Shakthi

4.Subbrayammal ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registraion, No.100, Santhom High Road, Foreshore Estate, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sivagiri, Erode District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in RFL/Sivagiri - Erode/56/2022 dated 01.08.2022 and quash the same and consequentially directing the second responent to register the documents for R.S.No.650/6, Old.S.No.325/C2, Oor Natham, Sivagiri Town Panchayat, Sivagiri Village, Erode Taluk, Sivagiri Sub-Registration District, Erode Registration District without insisting the original documents.

For petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in RFL/Sivagiri - Erode/56/2022 dated 01.08.2022 and quash the same and consequentially directing the second responent to register the documents for R.S.No.650/6, Old.S.No.325/C2, Oor Natham, Sivagiri Town Panchayat, Sivagiri Village, Erode Taluk, Sivagiri Sub-Registration District, Erode Registration District without insisting the original documents.

2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. In view of the limited relief sought for in this petition and on the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners presented a document before the second respondent on 01.08.2022 for executing Sale Deed. However, the said document was refused to be registered by the respondent on the ground that parent document was not annexed along with the document which is presented for registration. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners for the above relief.

4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners annexed the certified copy of the parent document, even then the respondent refused to register the document is not sustainable, the issue involved in the present case, is no more res-integra. He further relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020, order dated 11.02.2021. The relevant portion of the above said order is extracted hereunder:-

"8.This Court is entirely in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. The latest decision of the learned Single Judge appears to have not considered the implication of the Circular with reference to the scheme of the relevant Act. On the other hand, the above three decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner would certainly hold the field and in which event, insistence on production of original Title Deeds by the Registering Authority is without any authority of law. The Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in this regard cannot have any sanctity, unless the power of issuance of such Circular is authorized under the provisions of the Act. This Court has consistently held that no such power can be read into Act, in the absence of any specific provisions and in that view of the matter, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the subject issue is no more res-integra. As far as the latest decision of the learned Single Judge is concerned, being a kind of a contra view, this Court is of the opinion that the order passsed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16768 of 2020, dated 26.11.2020 has not appreciated the provisions