JUDGMENT : KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J 1. The property having an extent of 72.87 Ares comprised in Survey No. 379/4-9 of Thrithala Village, Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad District, originally belonged to late Abubacker Haji. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of Abubacker Haji. After the death of Abubacker Haji, the petitioner and his remaining children decided to settle the property in favour of their mother and accordingly, prepared Ext.P1 draft settlement deed and submitted the same for registration before the respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 refused to register Ext.P1 settlement deed, insisting on prior title deed of the property. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. I have heard Sri. T.H. Shain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.S. Syamanthak, the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the Sub-Registrar did not register Ext.P1 settlement deed since the petitioner failed to produce title deed of the property to show that his father acquired title over the property. 4. Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides for enquiry before registration of a document by the Registering Officer. A reading of the said provision would show that the Registering Officer, prior to registration, is bound to enquire as to whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and also to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him either in person or through a representative. Section 71 says that every Sub Registrar refusing to register a document shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in Book No. 2. Chapter 11 of Registration Rules (Kerala) framed under Section 69(2) of the Registration Act deals with the procedure to be adopted by the Registrar at the time of registration of the document. Rule 67 deals with the enquiry before registration. It says that it is not the duty of the Registering Officer to enquire into the validity of a document except documents styled as marriage agreement brought to him for registration or to attend any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that executing party had no right to execute the document. It says that it is not the duty of the Registering Officer to enquire into the validity of a document except documents styled as marriage agreement brought to him for registration or to attend any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that executing party had no right to execute the document. Rule 191 gives indication as to some of the circumstances under which Registrar can refuse registration. It reads thus: “191. The reasons for refusal will usually come under one or more of the heads mentioned below; which should invariably be quoted as authority for refusal. Section 19 (I) That the document is written in a language which the Registering Officer does not understand and which is not commonly used in the district, and that it is unaccompanied by a true translation and a true copy. Section 20 (II) That it contains unattested interlineations, blanks, erasures, or alterations which in the opinion of the Registering Officer require to be attested. Section 21(1-3) and Section 22 (III) That the description of the property is insufficient to identify it. Section 21(4) (IV) That the document is unaccompanied by a copy or copies of any map or plan which it contains. Rule 42 (V) That the date of execution is not stated in the document or that the correct date is not ascertainable. Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 72, 75 and 77 VI. That it is presented after the prescribed time. Sections 32, 33, 40 and 43 (VII) That it is presented by a person who has no right to present it. Section 32A (VII-A) That the document is not affixed with the Passport size photographs and impression/impressions of the left thumb or any of the fingers in the absence of left thumb as prescribed in Rule 30A(i) and (ii). Section 34 (VIII) That the executing parties or their representatives, assigns, or agents have failed to appear within the prescribed time. Note: ‘Prescribed time’ shall mean the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 and not the delay of four months in appearance which may be condoned under the proviso to Section 34, unless the presentant or the executing party concerned applies for extension of the period on proper grounds or takes action under Section 36. Note: ‘Prescribed time’ shall mean the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 and not the delay of four months in appearance which may be condoned under the proviso to Section 34, unless the presentant or the executing party concerned applies for extension of the period on proper grounds or takes action under Section 36. Sections 34 and 43 (IX) That the Registering Officer is not satisfied as to the identity of a person appearing before him who alleges that he has executed the document. Sections 34 and 40 (X) That the Registering Officer is not satisfied as to the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent so to appear. Section 35 (XI) That execution is denied by any person purporting to be an executing party or by his agent. Note: When a Registering Officer is satisfied that an executant is purposely keeping out of the way with a view to evade registration of a document or has gone to a distant place and is not likely to return to admit execution within the prescribed time, registration may be refused, the non-appearance being treated as tantamount to denial of execution. Section 35 (XII) That the person purporting to have executed the document is a minor, an idiot or a lunatic. Note: When the executant of a document who is examined under a commission under Section 38 of the Act is reported by the Commissioner to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, registration may be refused, and it is not necessary that the Registering Officer should personally examine the executant to satisfy himself as to the existence of the disqualification. Section 35 (XIII) That execution is denied by the representative or assign of a deceased person by whom the documents purports to have been executed. Note: When some of the representatives of a deceased executant admit and others deny execution, the registration of the document shall be refused in toto, the persons interested being let to apply to the Registrar for an enquiry into the fact of execution. Sections 35 and 41 (XIV) That the alleged death of a person by whom the document purports to have been executed has not been proved. Sections 35 and 41 (XIV) That the alleged death of a person by whom the document purports to have been executed has not been proved. Section 41 (XV) That the Registering Officer is not satisfied as to the fact of execution in the case of a will or of an authority to adopt presented after the death of the testator or donor. Sections 25, 34 and 80 (XVI) That the prescribed fee or fine has not been paid. (XVII) That the full additions of all persons executing and of all persons claiming under the document are not given. (XVIII) A Kanam demise or a renewal thereof shall be refused registrations if it does not contain the following particulars: (i) The name if any, the description and the extent of each item of holding. (ii) The Government tax payable on each item. (iii) The renewal fee if any paid. If no renewal fee is paid the fact should be stated. (iv) The settlement pattam, the settlement patta, michavaram, the Jenmivaram and the Jenmikaram in respect of the land or each of the several parcels of land comprised in the holding. Rule 67 (XIX) That the executing parties do not get the status of married couple as per the document styled as marriage agreement.” 5. Rule 191 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) does not say that the Registering officer can refuse registration of a document submitted before him on the ground of non production of title deed or prior document relating to the property. Rule 67 is specific when it says that the Registering officer cannot inquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration based on the ground that executing party had no title to execute the document. Thus, the Registering Officer has no authority to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to question the right of the executant to execute the document or to insist for production of title deed or prior document of the property. The objection raised by the respondent does not fall within any of the sub-clauses mentioned in Rule 67 or any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 191. Therefore, the respondent is directed to register the settlement deed to be produced by the petitioner in proper format in accordance with the law without insisting for the production of prior title deed. 6. Therefore, the respondent is directed to register the settlement deed to be produced by the petitioner in proper format in accordance with the law without insisting for the production of prior title deed. 6. The writ petition is disposed of as above.