Kerala High Court
V.C. John vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its ... on 23 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15409 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
V.C. JOHN
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. LATE CHACKO, VELUVADAKETHIL HOUSE, FROM
KUNNUMPARAMBIL, VALIAKUNNAM MURI, PERUMPETTY VILLAGE,
MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.,
PIN - 689592
BY ADVS.
P.HARIDAS
BIJU HARIHARAN
SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW
P.C.SHIJIN
RISHIKESH HARIDAS
ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PATHANAMTHITTA, COLLECTORATE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689645
3 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. KERALA, PIN - 695035
4 SUB-REGISTRAR
VENNIKULAM, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, VENNIKULAM,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689544
BY SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, (GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No. 15409 of 2024
..2..
s
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner,
aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 4 th
respondent/Sub Registrar to register Ext.P2
document. The objection of the 4th respondent is
based on the injunction contemplated in relief
no.2 in Ext.P1 judgment in the suit
O.S.No.364/2018 of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader, who appears
for all the respondents, including the 4th
respondent/Sub Registrar.
3. The suit O.S.No.364/2018 was one for
partition. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff
in that suit. The property originally belonged to
the brother of the petitioner, one V.C.Varghese.
..3..
s
His wife predeceased him. The said V.C.Varghese
also died intestate on 22.04.1999, whereupon the
property devolved upon the plaintiff and three
other persons, who are his siblings, each having
1/5 undivided right in the property. While so, one
among the siblings sold the property to two
persons, husband and wife, who are arraigned as
defendants 8 and 9 in the suit, purporting to
convey the entire rights in the property, the
vendor claiming as the absolute owner thereof.
Partition was sought for, ignoring the said
document. The suit was allowed, finding that the
property is liable to be partitioned into five
equal shares, whereby the plaintiff and other
siblings were entitled to 1/5 share each. The
second relief granted in the said suit is the
centre of controversy, which is extracted here
below:
"(2) Defendants 3,6,7 to 9 and men under them
are restrained from cut and remove valuable
trees standing in plaint schedule property,
..4..
s
causing any damages to the plaint schedule
property, executing any documents in respect of
the plaint schedule property and also from
erecting any new structures or buildings in the
plaint schedule property."
(underlined for emphasis)
The extent and scope of the above injunction as
against defendants 3, 6 and 7 to 9, from creating
any document in respect of the plaint schedule
property is the question herein.
4. Before addressing the same, the factual
parameters which are liable to be taken stock of
are that, there has been an understanding between
the purchasers (defendants 8 and 9 in the suit)
and between the plaintiff/petitioner, whereby the
former have agreed to sell their share under the
document to the petitioner/plaintiff. As already
indicated, the said document was executed by one
among the siblings, who had only 1/5 share in the
property. Though the document purports to convey
..5..
s
the entire right over the property, the only legal
effect of the document is that, the 1/5 share
which the executant had stood conveyed to the
purchasers, who were defendants 8 and 9 in the
suit. It is the said 1/5 share, which the said
defendants seek to convey to the
petitioner/plaintiff.
5. This Court, having been appraised the facts
and circumstances, is of the opinion that, the
restraint in respect of creation of document will
not operate in the case of a document being
executed in favour of the plaintiff. The same will
avail only in respect of creating documents in
favour of 3rd persons, in derogation of the rights
of the plaintiffs, as also, other sharers. The
said direction is essentially one to preserve the
subject matter of the property for the purpose of
final decree.
..6..
s
6. In these circumstances, the restraint/
injunction contained in relief no.2 in Ext.P1
judgment need not stand in the way of registration
of the proposed Ext.P2 document in favour of the
petitioner/plaintiff. Consequently, there will be
a direction to the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar to
register Ext.P2 sale deed, as and when the same is
presented, upon satisfaction that all other
requirements for registration (except the
injunction, the effect of which has already been
explained above) are complied with.
The Writ Petition (Civil) is disposed of, as
above.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
TR
..7..
s
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15409/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.
364/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA
DATED 20.11.2019
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE DEED DRAWN
ON THE STAMP PAPER DATED 22.3.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY SUB
REGISTRAR, VENNIKULAM DATED NIL
