ORDER : Mr. M. Murugan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2. By consent of parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal, since the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by earlier decision made by this Court in favour of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner sold the property situated in Survey No.267/1, Rajasuryamadai Village, measuring to an extent of 2.07.5 hectare, 5 acres and 13 cents, to one Paulraj, S/o.Veluchamy, Door No.85, Pulikara Theru, Velipattinam Post, Ramanathapuram District, by way of a sale deed, dated 16.11.2015. When the said sale deed was presented for registration before the second respondent, the same was returned by passing the impugned communication wherein and whereby the second respondent called upon the petitioner to re-present the document for registration with necessary documents supporting the title of the petitioner. In other words through the impugned communication, the second respondent raised a doubt about the title of the petitioner in respect of the property that was conveyed under the above said sale deed. 4. Whether the registering authority has powers to refuse the document presented for registration on the ground that the vendor has no title over the property, has already been considered by this Court in W.P(MD)No.10479 of 2012, dated 21.12.2012 wherein this Court has observed at paragraph Nos.7, 9 and 11 as follows: “7.In view of submissions made on either side, the question falls for consideration is, whether the Sub-Registrar has powers to refuse the document presented for registration on the ground that the vendor has no title over the property ? 9. A reading of the said Rule would show that it is not the duty of the registering officer to enquire into the validity of the document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document and he has to consider the objections raised on any one of the grounds stated in Rule 55. The said rule further would reveal that if there is any impersonation on the part of the executants to the document or these is any element of fraud, then only the Sub Registrar is entitled to enquire into the matter. The said rule further would reveal that if there is any impersonation on the part of the executants to the document or these is any element of fraud, then only the Sub Registrar is entitled to enquire into the matter. But here, it is not the case of he respondent that there is impersonation of the part of the executants. On the other hand, the impugned order was passed stating that the vendor has no right over the property. 11. A reading of the said order would show that the Registrar has refused to registrar the document on the ground that the property belonged to one Kalai Selvi. On the other hand, the impugned order was passed by the Registrar by coming to conclusion that the vendor of the petitioner has no title over the property and as such, the same could not be registered. Rule 55 does not provide enquiry with regard to the right and ownership of the same. The authority concerned are only bound to verify whether there is any fraud or forgery of the document. In my opinion, the respondent ought not to have refused to register the document. In these circumstances, I do not agree with the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Sub Registrar had acted only as per the circular issued by Inspector General of Registration. If the instruction issued by way of circular against the object of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and if the impugned order is based on the instruction, it is liable to be set aside. So far as the present case is concerned, the alleged instruction given by the Inspector General of Registration is totally against the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed and, accordingly, quashed.” 5. I myself considered the similar issue in W.P(MD)No.21805 of 2015 on 07.12.2015, wherein it has been observed at paragraph Nos.7 and 10 as follows:- “7........When the relationship between the parties is not in dispute, I am unable to understand as to how the second respondent issued the impugned Check Slip by raising the above referred two queries, which are undoubtedly questioning the right and title of the executors over the property sought to be settled. It is well settled that the Registering Authority is not competent or entitled to go into and raise questions with regard to the title to the property of the executor of a document.” “10. It is to be noted at this juncture that registration of a document does not mean that the title to the property is legally confirmed on the parties. The registration is only a legal procedure confirming the execution and not confirming the contents of the document so executed. Thus, it goes without saying that the registration of a document shall not be taken to mean that such document is unquestionable. Thus, the role of registering authority is to be confined only to see the document is presented in accordance with law. Therefore, I am of the firm view that both the queries raised by the Registering Authority touching upon the title to the property cannot be sustained and therefore, I find every justification to set aside the impugned check Slip dated 05.08.2015 and the consequential order dated 08.09.2015.” 6. Therefore, I am of the view that the second respondent is not justified in returning the document on the ground that the petitioner has to present the same only with supporting document showing title to the property of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 17.11.2015, is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is at liberty to re-present the document before the second respondent for registration. If the document is so presented, the second respondent shall register the same, if no other legal impediment is there, for making such registration. Such exercise shall be done by the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of document. No costs.