Kerala High Court
Aboobacker vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 26829 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 ABOOBACKER
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O MOIDEEN, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS THEKKINETH HOUSE,
KONJASSERY.P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683547.
2 SELMA MOIDEEN,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O MOIDEEN, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS POONCHERIYIL HOUSE, PAYIPRA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PEZHAKAPILLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.
3 SINI SHAHUL,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS CHERAKAKUDI HOUSE,
VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALLAPRA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683556.
BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
REGISTRATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.
2 PERUMBAVOOR SUB REGISTRY,
PERUMBAVOOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-685542.
3 SHEREEFA MANZIL,
AGED 76 YEARS
W/O.AZEEZ, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS CHERUKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH , PONJASSERY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683547.
4 SAJITH SUBAIR,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.SUBAIR, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS CHERAKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PONJASSERRY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683547.
WP(C) NO. 26829 OF 2021
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26829 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners say that, they purchased certain properties from
the 3rd respondent, but that when they presented Exts.P1 to P3 Sale
Deeds for registration, it was denied to be done by the 2 nd respondent -
Sub Registrar, saying that there is an order of attachment on them, at
the instance of the 4th respondent, who is the daughter-in-law of the 3 rd
respondent.
2. Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submitted that even if there is an attachment over the
properties, as now stated by the Sub Registrar, it will not stop the said
Authority from registering Exts.P1 to P3, since transfer of the same
will be subject to the said attachment and that his clients undertake to
honour the same, if it becomes so warranted in future.
3. In other words, what Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel,
argued was that the documents in question be allowed to be registered
subject to the attachment, so that there will be no prejudice to the 4 th
respondent either. He explained that he is making this submission
because his clients have already parted with large amounts of money
to the 3rd respondent and therefore, that if they are now refused
registration of the documents, they would be put to irreparable
WP(C) NO. 26829 OF 2021
prejudice, particularly, because the amount covered by the attachment
is only about Rs.35 lakhs or thereabout.
4. I notice from the files that even though service has been
completed on respondents 3 and 4, they have chosen not to appear
before this Court in person or to be represented through counsel;
inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to
offer in answer to the various allegations of the petitioner and that
they do not stand in the way of reliefs being granted to them as prayed
for.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader -
Smt.Amminikutty, submitted that petitioners cannot have any cause
against the 2nd respondent because he has acted correctly and validly,
because he noticed an order of attachment over the properties
obtained by the 4th respondent. She submitted that, therefore, unless
this Court directs the 2 nd respondent to register the documents, it
cannot be done on account of the afore fact.
6. When I evaulate the afore submissions and in particular the
fact that 4th respondent has kept away from this Court, it is evident
that, as far as she is concerned, she only requires her claim before the
Family Court to be protected.
WP(C) NO. 26829 OF 2021
7. Since Sri.Sreekumar Chelur, learned counsel for the
petitioners, says that his clients are willing to accept the properties
subject to the attachment, I do not see any reason why they should be
denied the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3 documents being registered.
Resultantly, recording the undertaking of Sri.Sreekumar Chelur
as afore, I order this writ petition and direct the 2 nd respondent to
register Exts.P1 to P3 documents in favour of the petitioners, which
shall be done, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two
weeks from the date on which they are presented before him for such
purpose.
As far as the 4th respondent is concerned, I make it clear that her
claim will not be put to any prejudice even after Exts.P1 to P3
documents are registered and that the properties in question and the
petitioners, along with the 3 rd respondent, will continue to be
responsible for the claim made by her before the competent Court.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 26829 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26829/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNREGISTERED SALE DEED IN THE NAME
OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 11.10.21.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNREGISTERED SALE DEED IN THE NAME
OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 11.10.21.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNREGISTERED SALE DEED IN THE NAME
OF THE THIRD PETITIONER DATED 11.10.21.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERT OWNED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT IN THE NAME OF
THE THIRD RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE VENGOLA VILLAGE
OFFICER, DATED 16.7.20.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA IN OP NO.697 OF 21 DATED
NIL.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT IN IA.NO.2 OF 21 IN O.P.NO.697 OF 21
DATED 8.11.21 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
