S.D.Raveendra Prasad vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21052 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 16747 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     S.D.RAVEENDRA PRASAD,
          AGED 78 YEARS
          S/O. V.K. DAMODARAN PILLAI, SYAM NIVAS, TC 24/41 (OLD
          T.C. 4/379), AMBALAMUKKU, KAVADIYAR P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003, NOW RESIDING AT
          INDEEVARAM, C.C. 37/870A, PONEVAZHY ROAD, AIMS P.O.,
          PONEKKARA, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682041.

    2     P. LALITHAKUMARI AMMA,
          AGED 76 YEARS
          W/O. S.D. RAVEENDRA PRASAD, INDEEVARAM, CC 37/870A,
          PONEVAZHY ROAD, AIMS P.O., PONEKKARA, ELAMAKKARA,
          ERNAKULAM-682041.

          BY ADV R.PADMAKUMARI



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2     THE SUB REGISTRAR,
          SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          KAVADIYAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAURAM TALUK,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 ADDL.R4* THE TAHSILDAR,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.
          *(ADDITIONAL R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER THE
          ORDER DATED 03/11/2021 IN WPC NO. 16747/2021)

          SMT.RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN - GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16747 OF 2021           2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who are stated to be senior

citizens, have approached this Court seeking a

direction to the 2nd respondent - Sub Registrar to

complete registration of Ext.P3 Partition Deed, by

permitting affixture of the signature of their son -

Shri.L.R.Syam Prasad on it; and to allow the 1 st

petitioner to do so on his behalf, as his power of

Attorney, on the strength of Ext.P2. They further

pray that once the registration is thus completed,

the competent among respondents 3 and 4 be directed

to effect transfer of Registry of the respective

shares of the property covered by Ext.P3 within a

time frame to be fixed by this court.

2. The afore request of the petitioners as made

by their learned counsel, Smt.R.Padmakumari, was

answered by Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran - learned

Government Pleader, pointing out that Ext.P3 is not

a complete document since the afore mentioned

Shri.L.R.Syam Prasad is yet to affix his signature

thereon. She submitted that, therefore, the

provisions of Section 24 of the Registration Act,

1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for

short) would apply and that the petitioners will

have to remit the requisite fine, as stipulated

therein, for such purpose. She explained that the

document in question is dated 17.06.2021; and that,

as per Section 24 of the Act, it ought to have been

presented for registration within a period of four

months. She submitted that even though the

petitioners had presented the document for

registration, it was not so done by their son

Shri.L.R.Syam Prasad; and consequently that the

provisions of Section 25 of the Act would come to

play.

3. Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran added that, as per

Section 25 of the Act, if any document, were several

persons are executing it, was not presented for

registration by anyone of them within the afore time

frame, then the jurisdictional Tahsildar is

competent to accept the same for registration,

provided a fine of not exceeding ten times the

amount of the proper registration fee is determined

and paid by said person. She, therefore, prayed that

if this Court is inclined to grant any relief to the

petitioners, then the 3rd respondent or the 1st

petitioner, acting as his power of attorney, may be

directed to present the document before the 2nd

respondent - Sub Registrar, who will thereupon

adjudicate the fine payable and admit the said

document for registration under the mandate of

Section 25 of the Act.

4. In reply, Smt.R.Padmakumari, learned counsel

for the petitioners, pointed out that since the writ

petition was filed by her clients on 10.08.2021, the

rigour of Section 25 of the Act, as regards the

payment of fine, may be directed to be waived in

this case. She submitted that she is making this

request because the amount of fine to be determined

by the Sub Registrar would be very high and it would

not be possible for her clients to suffer the same.

5. I have evaluated the afore submissions and I

have also gone through the materials available on

record.

6. There can be little doubt - it being admitted

by the petitioners themselves - that Ext.P3 cannot

be construed to have been fully registered as of

now. It has been executed and presented for

registration only by the petitioners and not by

their son, Shri.L.R.Syam Prasad. Of course the 1st

petitioner says that he is holding Ext.P2 power of

attorney from his son, but I fail to understand why

he did not approach the Sub-Registrar under Section

24 of the Act, to have it registered within the four

month period.

7. That said, presumably being under a wrong

impression, the petitioners have chosen to approach

this Court on 10.08.2021, which is well within

the time frame they could have approached the Sub

Registrar under Section 24 of the Act. Had they done

so, then obviously, the document would have been

registered without insisting on any fine.

8. Therefore, the only surviving question in

this case is whether the petitioners must be

subjected to a fine under the rigour of Section 25

of the Act. This being a statutory provision,

certainly this Court cannot direct it to be waived,

but I am certain that the peculiar circumstances in

this case must obtain some latitude to them, at

least to the extent of the fine to be determined by

the Sub Registrar.

9. Going by Section 25 of the Act, the fine to

be imposed is stipulated to be "not exceeding ten

times the amount of the proper registration fee".

The registration fee, admittedly, has already been

paid and the only additional obligation will be to

pay the fine as per this Section.

10. As I have already said above, this writ

petition was filed on 10.08.2021 and entertained by

this Court until this time, when I am delivering

judgment. Obviously, therefore, this is a factor

that should certainly go in favour of the

petitioners.

11. However, since this Court cannot direct

waiver of the fine amount under Section 25 of the

Act, I am certain that the Sub Registrar must be

directed to consider the rather singular

circumstances of the case and to impose a fine which

is the least possible under the said provisions,

because the mandate thereunder only provides for the

maximum and not the minimum.

12. To paraphrase, even a fine of Rs.1 under

Section 25 would subserve the mandate of the said

provision; though I am not saying that this should

be the fine to be imposed by the Sub Registrar. I,

therefore, deem it appropriate to leave it to his

discretion, to decide the apposite amount as fine,

however, taking note of the fact that the

petitioners had approached this Court on 10.08.2021,

when they had more than two months time to have

approached the said Authority, under Section 24 of

the Act.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and

permit the 1st petitioner to present Ext.P3 for

further registration on behalf of his son

Shri.L.R.Syam Prasad, on the strength of Ext.P2

Power of Attorney; and if this is done within a

period of one week from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment, the jurisdictional Sub-

Registrar will consider the same under the mandate

of Section 25 of the Act, after imposing the least

amount of fine that is possible under the said

Section.

Though I leave it to the discretion of the Sub

Registrar to fix the quantum of fine, I am certain

that he will rise to occasion and understand the

intent of this Court that the petitioners be not

put to any unnecessary prejudice, because they had

already approached this Court on 10.08.2021.

It goes without saying that once the

registration of the document is completed, the

petitioners will be at liberty to approach the 4 th

respondent - Tahsildar for transfer of Registry of

the property covered by the said document; which

Authority will consider the same and issue

appropriate orders thereon without any avoidable

delay, but not later than one month thereafter.

Once the Transfer of Registry is so effected,

the petitioners can approach the 3rd respondent -

Village Officer for remittance of the Land Tax,

which will also be acceded without any avoidable

delay.

At this time, the learned counsel for the

petitioners, Smt.Padmakumari, pointed out that her

clients have made a specific averment in Paragraph 5

of this writ petition that when the 1 st petitioner

approached the Sub Registrar for registration of the

document under the mandate of Section 24 of the Act,

it was refused and that it is, therefore, that he

has been forced to approach this Court.

Though there is no material to substantiate the

afore assertion, I am certain that this is also a

factor which should persuade the Sub-Registrar to

impose the least amount of fine, as is possible

under Section 25 of the Act, as I have already

ordered above.

After I dictated the afore part of this

judgment, Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran intervened to

say that, as per the pleadings on record, the

respondents have taken a stand that the petitioners

are also liable to pay re-registration charges.

I am afraid that I cannot accede to this

because, what has been ordered in this judgment is

not a re-registration of the document, but its

further registration under the mandate of Section 25

of the Act; and consequently only 'one proper

registration fee' becomes payable. This having been

already done, I do not think that a further

registration fee is necessary to be paid by the

petitioners. This contention is, therefore,

repelled.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/6.11

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16747/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 17/09/1977 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR SON L.R. SYAM PRASAD.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 26/03/2019 EXECUTED BY L.R. SYAM PRASAD IN FAVOUR OF 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED OF SRO PATTAM DATED 17/06/2021.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT.