Sankaran T.A vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 9442 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
     MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 13TH BHADRA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 29026 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
     1     SANKARAN T.A, AGED 79 YEARS
           S/O APPUKUTTAN, THADATHIL,
           GREEN GARDEN, KOTTAPPURAM ,
           POONKUNNAM P.O THRISSUR - 680002

    2     SARALA, AGED 74 YEARS
          W/O SANKARAN, THADATHIL, GREEN GARDEN,
          KOTTAPPURAM , POONKUNNAM P.O
          THRISSUR - 680002

          BY ADVS.
          MANSOOR ALI
          JIBIN BABU


RESPONDENTS:
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE
           DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ,
          THRISSURCIVIL STATION,
          CIVIL LINE ROAD,
          AYYATHOLE THRISSUR - 680003

    3     THE REGISTRAR (GL) THRISSUR
          DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE ,
          CHEMBUKAVU P.O, THRISSUR - 680020

    4     THE SUB REGISTRAR, MATHILAKAM
          THRIPPELAKAM, MATHILAKAM P.O
          THRISSUR - 680685

    5     VILLAGE OFFICER, PANANGADU VILLAGE
          CHANDRIKA ARCADE BUILDING , S N PURAM,
          KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR - 680668
          R BY GP ADV.BIMAL K.NATH


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 29026 OF 2023     : 2 :




                          JUDGMENT

The petitioners state that they are in absolute title,

possession and enjoyment of 0.45 ares of property

comprised in Sy.No.89/18-1, 0.35 ares of property

comprised in Sy.No.89/19 and 0.80 ares of property

comprised in Sy.No.89/19, of Panangad Village,

Kodungallur Taluk. According to them, 0.45 ares of

property comprised in Sy.No.89/18-1 was obtained by one

Subramanyan by virtue of patta No.898/1976 of Taluk Land

Board. The said Subramanyan executed a sale deed in

favour of one Sahadevan and Sushama, who, later

executed Ext.P2 sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The

petitioners have effected mutation of the property and

paying land tax to the Government, as evident from Ext.P3.

However, when the petitioners approached the 4 th

respondent/the Sub Registrar for the sale of the property,

they were directed to produce a certified copy of patta

No.898/1976. The petitioners submit that they are not

having the copy of patta No.898/1976. Though the

petitioners approached the 2nd respondent for certified

copy of the patta, the 2nd respondent informed them that

the file is not traceable. Since the 4 th respondent is

refusing to register the property without having a certified

copy of patta No.898/1976, the petitioners have

approached this Court for a direction to the 4 th respondent

to transfer possessory rights of the property without

producing the certified copy of patta No.898/1976.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners refer to the

judgments of this Court reported in Balachandran v. Sub

Registrar and Another [2023 (4) KLT 479] and in

Sumathi and Another v. State of Kerala and others

[2018 (5) KHC 586], wherein this Court has taken the view

that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 17 of

the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar is not authorised to

insist that the executant must produce prior documents for

the purpose of registration. In Balachandran's case

(supra), this Court found that the persons executing the

document can only transfer the right that they have and

merely because they are purporting to transfer possessory

right and they have not been able to produce any prior

documents, cannot be a ground for the Sub Registrar to

refuse registration. The learned counsel for the petitioners

also referred to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.2871 of 2018,

wherein in paragraph '2' , this Court held as follows:

"2. The possessory rights also can be conveyed. There is no bar impediment under law in transferring the possessory right of a person to another person. The possession is based on a lease or under a title, is not a matter of enquiry by the Sub Registrar. What all the rights the petitioner is having, alone can be conveyed to the transferee."

In the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in

the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view that the same

principle can be applied in the present case also.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the 4 th

respondent is directed to register the property without

insisting for a certified copy of patta No.898/1976, subject

to compliance of the usual formalities, within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE SALE DEED NO 2662/90 DATED 02.11.1990

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 1361/I/2001 DATED 23.04.2001

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE THE 0.45 ARES OF PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY.NO:89/18- 1, OF PANANGAD VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 07/07/2023

Exhibit P 4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION NO 581854/23-LR4 DATED 31/07/2023

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO DCTSR/8314/2023-

LR4 DATED 05.08.2023