Kerala High Court
Gigi P Kaaramel vs Sub-Registrar Puthencruz on 14 November, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2024:KER:85139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 35795 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 GIGI P KAARAMEL
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O PATHROSE, KAARAMEL HOUSE, VILANGU PO,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
2 BABU ABRAHAM
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O ABRAHAM, EDAYINAL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKAMBLAM VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
BY ADVS.
P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
AMRUTHA K.P.
SAGAR ROSHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB-REGISTRAR PUTHENCRUZ
OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION,
PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682308
2 INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION,
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
VANCHIYOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
2024:KER:85139
WP(C) NO.35795 OF 2024
2
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV.
SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:85139
WP(C) NO.35795 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are aggrieved by the non registration of
Ext.P1 sale deed by the 1 st respondent on the ground that
there is discrepancy in the extent of land in the revenue
records.
2. The 1st petitioner acquired title over 79.50 Ares of
land as per Ext.P2. Thereafter, he assigned 36.28 Ares and
32.34 Ares respectively to the third parties. According to the
1st petitioner, what remains with him is 10.88 Ares. The 1 st
petitioner wanted to sell the said extent of land to the 2 nd
petitioner. For that, he has executed Ext.P1. When Ext.P1
was presented before the 1st respondent for registration, he
raised an objection stating that in the revenue records, the
property left with the 1 st petitioner is only 2.74 Ares. It is in
these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this
Court.
3. I have heard Sri. P. Thomas Geeverghese, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Vidya
2024:KER:85139
WP(C) NO.35795 OF 2024
Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader.
4. The 1st respondent has filed a statement. It is stated
that even though the 1st petitioner acquired title over 79.50
Ares of land as per Ext.P2, only 71.36 Ares of land alone was
mutated in his favour. According to the 1 st respondent, what
remains with the 1st petitioner after the assignment to third
parties is only 2.74 Ares of land. In Ext.P1, the 1 st petitioner
has stated that there is pending litigation between him and
his brother in respect of the property and he is not in a
position to effect mutation in respect of the entire 10.88 Ares
of land due to the pendency of the litigation. As per Rule 16
of the Transfer of Registry Rules, the enquiry contemplated
under the said Rule for the purpose of transfer of registry is
only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect
the legal rights of any persons in respect of the lands covered
by the decisions in transfer of registry cases. It is settled that
mere mutation of the land will not confer any title over the
property. As evident from Ext.P2, the 1 st petitioner acquired
title over 79.50 Ares. After assigning 36.28 Ares and 32.34
2024:KER:85139
WP(C) NO.35795 OF 2024
Ares respectively in favour of the third parties, the 1 st
petitioner has title over 10.88 Ares. Since the 1 st petitioner
has title over the property, he can very well assign the said
property. Moreover, all these details have been clearly
mentioned by the 1st petitioner in the sale deed itself.
Hence, the 1st respondent is not justified in not registering
Ext.P1. Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to register
Ext.P1 sale deed in accordance with law within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. However, it is made clear that the transfer of
registry in respect of the entire 10.88 Ares shall be effected
in favour of the purchaser in Ext.P1 only after the final
disposal of the pending litigation. It is also made clear that
the transfer effected as per Ext.P1 shall be subject to the final
outcome of the pending litigation.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
BR
2024:KER:85139
WP(C) NO.35795 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35795/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SALE DEED
EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR
OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED.19.9.2024
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
1145/1993 DATED.23.3.1993
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPERTY
DATED.12.9.2024
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE
PETITIONER ISSUED BY KIZHAKKAMBALAM
VILLAGE OFFICE DATED.20.9.2024
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.
30/2011 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
DATED.23.12.2015
Exhibit P6 THE PLAN APPROVED IN EXT. P5 JUDGMENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF CASE STATUS OF THE
SECOND APPEAL NO. 789/2018 IN HIGH COURT
WEB SITE
Exhibit.P8 THE TRUE COPY OF TOKEN GENERATED TO
REGISTER EXT. P1 DATED.20.9.2024 ISSUED
BY REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT
Exhibit.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR-VALUE NOTIFICATION
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY
DATED.25.3.2023
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
