VIPIN RAJ.R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the refusal of the Sub Registrar, Ottasekharamangalam SRO, to register the sale deeds presented before the said authority, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions. The specific contention of the petitioner is that mere pendency of a civil suit before the court of law is no reason to deny registration of a document which is validly presented before the Sub Registrar.

(2.) The petitioner and Smt.Vinitha Raj are the children of late Sri. Rajendran. Late Smt. Thankammal is the mother of Sri. Rajendran. While Rajendran was alive, Thankammal had settled 46 cents of property in Sy. No. 425/1 by a settlement deed in the year 1990 in favour of the petitioner and his sister, who were minors at that time. Mutation was effected and tax was being paid. While so, Rajendran passed away during the lifetime of Thankammal and after his death, Thankammal assumed the status of a trustee and she was managing the properties. When the petitioner and his sister attained majority, they took possession of the property . The petitioner states that owing to various reasons, the relationship between Thankammal and the petitioner became strained. In the year 2010, by document No.957/2010, Thankammal went on to unilaterally execute a cancellation deed, thereby cancelling the settlement deed. The petitioner and his sister instituted O.S.No.321/2020 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Neyyattinkara seeking to set aside the cancellation deed. Smt. Thankammal, on the other hand, instituted O.S. No. 282/2012 seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his sister from trespassing into the property. The suits were jointly tried and by Ext.P1 judgment dated 23.12.2015, the suit filed by the petitioner and his sister was decreed ex parte declaring that the cancellation deed No.957/2010 executed by Smt. Thankammal as null and void. The title of the plaintiffs in the said suit to the suit property was declared and Thankammal was interdicted from creating any document or interfering with the title of the plaintiffs. The suit filed by Smt. Thankammal was dismissed. Those judgments have become final.

(3.) According to the petitioner, out of the larger extent, he has assigned property having an extent of 2.19 Ares to a certain Shibu by Sale Deed No. 549/2020. He has now entered into an agreement to assign property having an extent of 9.07 Ares each to a certain Sunitha K and Smt Thankamony. Coming to know of the intention of the petitioner to assign the properties, the 3rd respondent in her capacity as the daughter of the settlor has filed Ext.P2 application before the Civil Court seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. She has also filed an application for condoning the delay of 1705 days in filing the said application. Those applications are pending consideration before the learned Subordinate Judge. However, no orders have been passed. The petitioner contends that when he presented Exts.P4 and P4(a) sale deeds before the 2nd respondent for registration, the same was refused on the ground of pendency of the civil suit. According to the petitioner, the civil court has not passed any orders interdicting the same and in that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent in refusing registration. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this court seeking for the following reliefs: