ORDER : G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned refusal check slip in Refusal No.RFL/No.2 Joint Sub-Registrar Serammahadevi/16/2024, dated 16.12.2024 passed by the respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the Petitioner, dated 11.12.2024. This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip issued by the respondent, dated 16.12.2024 on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original parent deed and also the mortgage is pending. 2. Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The Petitioner owned property comprised in S.No.2/6, 21/2A, 21/2B, 21/3B1A, 21/3B1B, 21/3B2,21/3B3 and 21/3B4 of Chockalingapuram Village, Seranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District to an extent of 3 acre and 96 cents and the property comprised in S.No.21/3A to an extent of 3 acre and 96 cents and in S.No.21/3A of the same village to an extent of 38 cents in the same village. Both the properties were purchased by the Petitioner by registered sale deeds dated 31.12.1992 and 17.7.2006 vide document No.1107/1992 and Document No.872 of 2006 respectively. After purchase, entire revenue records were mutated in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the above said property. Now the Petitioner is intended to sell the property in favour of his sister and executed a settlement deed, dated 11.12.2024 and presented the same for registration. However the respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the subject properties were mortgaed with UCO Bank and entered into encumbrance and failed to produce the parent documents. It is settled law that non production of original documents cannot be a ground for refusal of registration of settlement deed. 4. This issue has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court recently in WA.No.1160 of 2024 by judgment dated 27.09.2024. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- “7. The law relating to transfer of immovable property is governed by the substantial enactment namely, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 4. This issue has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court recently in WA.No.1160 of 2024 by judgment dated 27.09.2024. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- “7. The law relating to transfer of immovable property is governed by the substantial enactment namely, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The right to hold property and the right to be not deprived of property without reasonable compensation is a constitutional right ensured under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Being a constitutional right, it is one step superior to even the fundamental rights, as there cannot be a reasonable restriction on the said right and no one can be deprived of the property without reasonable compensation. The right to hold the property also takes in its fold the right to deal with the property. No doubt, the second proviso to rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules mandates that the original of the antecedent document should be produced to enable registration of a subsequent instrument. Of course, a way-out is provided namely, the production of non traceability certificate from the police department. We should also be conscious of the fact that any certificate from any Government department, as of today, comes only at a price for an ordinary citizen. An elaborate procedure has also been fixed for issuance of non traceability certificate. We have come across several instances where, because of the high pricing of and the complicated procedure involved in obtaining a non traceability certificate, instances of people obtaining non traceability certificate from the neighbouring States has increased. 8. The fundamental principle of law relating to transfer of immovable property is caveat emptor. A buyer of the property is required to be careful in not purchasing certain properties which are already encumbered or from person who does not have title. Even if a person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908, to enable the Registrar to refuse registration except Section 22-A and Section 22-B, which have been introduced recently in the year 2022 by the State Legislature insofar as Tamil Nadu is concerned. Even Section 22-A and Section 22-B do not authorise refusal of registration on the ground that the original of the prior's title deed has not been produced. Even Section 22-A and Section 22-B do not authorise refusal of registration on the ground that the original of the prior's title deed has not been produced. We are unable to resist observing that Rule 55-A has been stealthily introduced as a subordinate legislation only to enable Registrars refuse to register instruments indiscriminately. Neither Section 22-A nor Section 22-B authorise a Registrar to refuse to register instruments on the grounds specified under Rule 55-A. No doubt, Mr.Ramanlaal falls back on the power of Superintendence conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the District Registrars under Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 68 reads as follows: “68. Power of Registrar to superintend and control Sub-Registrars. (1) Every Sub-Registrar shall perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of such Sub-Registrar is situate. (2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (whether on complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered.'' 9. The power conferred under Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908, is only a supervisory jurisdiction and it invests the power in the Registrars to issue any order consistent with the Act. As we already observed, the provision of Section 55-A inserted in the rules has no statutory authority. Section 69 of the Registration Act 1908, enables the Inspector General to make rules providing for the matters that are set out in Clauses (a) to (h). The provision namely, Section 69 further provides that the rule so framed shall be consistent with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the rules made by the Inspector General of Registration exercising the power under Section 69 cannot override the provisions of the Act. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules prescribes the circumstances under which a Registrar can refuse to register an instrument. Clause 20 has been added to Rule 162 to enable the Registrar to refuse registration, if the presentant does not produce the original deed or record specified in Rule 55A. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules prescribes the circumstances under which a Registrar can refuse to register an instrument. Clause 20 has been added to Rule 162 to enable the Registrar to refuse registration, if the presentant does not produce the original deed or record specified in Rule 55A. We do not propose to delve into the validity or otherwise of the rule, but we must record that prima facie, the rule overreaches the legislation and it is beyond the powers of the Inspector General of Registration under Section 69. 1. Adverting to the facts on hand, the document that is sought to be registered is a release deed executed by the sister in favour of the brother. The document recites that the property belonged to the father. The parties are not strangers to each other. They have produced registration copies of the antecedent documents which are registered in the very same office. Unless the Registrar has a doubt regarding the genuineness of the copies issued by his own office, insistence on production of originals is a superfluous exercise. As we had already stated, it is a common knowledge and accepted phenomena today that one cannot secure a certificate from a Government office without the price. In such situation, driving executant of documents to obtain a non traceability certificate in case of lost document in every case, will result only in encouraging under hand dealings. When certified copies have been produced and it is not impossible for the Sub Registrar to have it verified with the original record that is available in his own office, insisting upon a non traceability certificate appears to be rather a wasteful exercise. Even in Punithavathy's case referred to supra, we have observed that the Registrars will not refuse registration particularly, when the parties to the documents are relatives and they take the risk of obtaining the document without examining the title. The copies of the documents have already been produced. The Sub Registrar could have verified the same with the original records in his office and register the instrument without dogmatically refusing registration. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned check slip. We direct the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, to register the release deed. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned check slip. We direct the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, to register the release deed. We permit the appellant to re-present the release deed within four weeks from today and upon such re-presentation, the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, will register the instrument without insisting on production of originals within 15 days from the date of presentation.” 5. In view of the above, the Registering Authority cannot insist for orignal parent document, when certified copies have been produced for registration of deed of conveyance in respect of the very same property. 6. Further, admittedly, the subject property was mortgaed with Uco Bank. Thereafter the entire loan has been cleared by the Petitioner and he was issued with No Due Certificate. However, the receipt was not registered so far. Moreover, even the pendency of the mortgage is not a bar to register the document. 7. In view of the above, the impugned check slip cannot be sustained and accordingly, the Refusal Check Slip, dated 16.12.2024 is quashed. The Petitioner is directed to represent the Settlement Deed, dated 11.12.2024 to the respondent for registration and on receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to register the same and release it forthwith, if it is otherwise in order. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.