Santhosh V.R vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 23272 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 20709 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

             SANTHOSH V.R
             AGED 40 YEARS
             S/O RAMANKUTTY, RESIDING AT VADAKKEPURACKAL,
             THIRUVEGAPARA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
             PIN-679304.

             BY ADVS.
             K.SUJAI SATHIAN
             ASHA MARIAM MATHEWS
             MARY LIYA SABU



RESPONDENT

    1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU,
             KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678013.

    2        SUB REGISTRAR
             SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, VILAYOOR P.O, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD-
             679309.

    3        DISTRICT REGISTRAR
             OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KENATHUPARAMBU,
             KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678013.

    4        TAHASILDHAR,
             TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PATTAMBI-679303.

    5        VILLAGE OFFICER
             VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVEGAPPARA-679304.

    6        BALASUBRAMONIAN
             AGED 59 YEARS
             S/O MADHAVAN, KUTTALAPPADI,
             VENGASSERI, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM,
             PALAKKAD-679516.

    7        GEETHA
             AGED 53 YEARS
 WP(C) NO. 20709 OF 2021
                                  2

             W/O VENUGOPAL, NADUVATHUPARAMBIL,
             VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679522.

     8       UNNIKRISHNAN @ KRISHNAKUMARAN
             AGED 51 YEARS
             S/O MADHAVAN, KUTTALAPPADI,
             VENGASSERI, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM,
             PALAKKAD-679516.

     9       SHEEJA
             AGED 52 YEARS
             W/O LATE MURALEEDHARAN, NELLITHODI,
             FAROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631.

     10      SHYAM SUNDER
             AGED 30 YEARS
             S/O LATE MURALEEDHARAN, NELLITHODI,
             FAROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631.

     11      SARATH SUNDAR
             AGED 24 YEARS
             S/O LATE MURALEEDHARAN, NELLITHODI,
             FAROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631.

             BY ADV V.A.VINOD



OTHER PRESENT:

           SR GP SMT AMMINIKKUTTY




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   25.11.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20709 OF 2021
                                 3


                        JUDGMENT

The essential issue impelled by the petitioner in this case is

as to how Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds could have been

accepted and registered by the 2nd respondent - Sub Registrar,

when the executants of the said documents had, themselves,

earlier presented and registered Exts.P4 and P5 Release Deeds

with respect to the same in his favour.

2. Sri. Sujuai Sathyan .K - learned counsel for the

petitioner, contended that the afore action of the 2nd

respondent - Sub Registrar is grossly in violation of the

affirmative declarations made by this Court in Santhosh

Antonio Netto v. Joshy Thomas -(2020(3) KHC 278);

reiteratingly argued that Exts.P4 and P5 Release Deeds had

earlier been executed by the party respondents in favour of his

clients; consequent to which, the property became vested in

them and therefore, that the subsequent cancellation Deeds

are non-est. He, thus prayed that Exts.P6 and P7 Deeds be

declared to be null and void by this Court, so that his client WP(C) NO. 20709 OF 2021

can deal with the property in question, on the strength of

Exts.P4 and P5 Release Deeds, without an impediment in

future.

3. In response, Sri.V.A.Vinod - learned counsel appearing

for the party respondents, conceded that, going by the

declarations in Santhosh Antonio Netto (Supra), the

registration of Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds could not

have been made. He submitted that, however, there were

certain errors in the afore mentioned Release Deeds, which

necessitated the registration of the Cancellation Deeds and

that this would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner

because, what was released to him through Exts.P4 and P5

was much more in excess than what was entitled to him. He,

therefore, prayed that Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds be

not interdicted by this Court.

4. Smt.K.Amminikutty - learned Senior Government

Pleader, submitted that the Sub Registrar had accepted and

registered Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds after verifying

all essential and imperative qualifications and requirements, as WP(C) NO. 20709 OF 2021

per the provisions of the Registration Act. She, however,

added that, the 2nd respondent - Registrar was not aware that

the said Deeds were presented to cancel the earlier Release

Deeds and submitted that the said Authority will abide by any

directions to be issued by this Court.

5. When I evaluate the afore rival contentions, it is

without any contest that, through Exts.P4 and P5 Release

Deeds, certain extents of property had been released in favour

of the petitioner and that the said documents had been,

admittedly, registered. Obviously, therefore, Sri.Sujai Sathyan

K. is absolutely right in contending that the property in

question became vested with his client and therefore, that

any subsequent document dealing with the same could have

been registered only with his client's knowledge and

concurrence, and not otherwise. In fact, this is the specific

declaration made by this Court in Santhosh Antonio Netto

v. Joshy Thomas -2020(3) KHC 278; and am of the view

that, since the 2nd respondent - Sub-Registrar has acted in

disregard of the same, Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds, WP(C) NO. 20709 OF 2021

cannot stand scrutiny in law.

6. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as

afore, Sri. Vinod - learned counsel for the party respondents

submitted that if this Court is inclined to declare Ext.P6 and P7

Deeds as null and void, then liberty may be reserved to his

clients to approach the competent Civil Court, for cancellation

of Ext.P4 and P5 Release Deeds.

7. There is no doubt that even if Exts.P6 and P7 are

declared by this Court to be illegal or non-est, and remedies

of the party respondents under the Civil law against Exts. P4

and P5 would remain uninterdicted and that they would be at

liberty to invoke and pursue them appropriately, without being

trammelled by any of the observations in this judgment.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and declare Exts.P6

and P7 Cancellation Deeds to be null and void in law; and

consequently set them aside, with liberty being reserved to

the party respondents to approach the Sub-Registrar and seek

refund of the registration charges, as well as the stamp duty of WP(C) NO. 20709 OF 2021

the said documents as per law; and if an application for such

purpose is made within a period of one week from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said Authority will act

in compliance with the mandated requirements under the

applicable Rules and Regulations and issue appropriate orders,

without any delay.

Needless to say, all rights of the party respondents to

proceed against Exts.P4 and P5 Release Deeds before the

competent Civil Court, or such other Forum, is left open,

without being trammeled or fettered by any of the above

observations or directions.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB WP(C) NO. 20709 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20709/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.2703/1982 OF SRO KUTTIPPURAM DATED 20.10.1982.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2704/1982 OF SRO, KUTTIPURAM DATED 20.10.1982.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1876/1998 OF SRO, VILAYUR DATED 26.11.1998.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.1853/2019, OF SRO, VILAYUR DATED 15.10.2019.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.1854/2019, OF SRO, VILAYUR DATED 15.10.2019.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED NO.1934/2019, OF SRO, VILAYUR DATED 11.11.2019.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED NO.1935/2019, OF SRO, VILAYUR DATED 11.11.2019.

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE ON PROPERTY VIDE CERTIFICATE NO.2252/20 DATED 06.10.2020.

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DARTED 23.09.2020.

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO 39/2020 DATED 07.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.20 IN WPC NO.16101/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.