K ESHAQUE Vs. SUB REGISTRAR KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent herein had executed a sale deed (Ext. P7) in favour of the petitioner on 1.4.2001 conveying superstructure with lease hold rights in respect of an extent of 13.33 cents in old survey No. 76/4A (resurvey No. 19.20.584, 585) and another extent of 29 cents in survey No. 58/5 (resurvey No. 19.20.585,586 and 587) both of Kasaba Village, Kozhikode Taluk in Kozhikode District. The said document was produced before the 1st respondent for registration. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has issued an objection slip dt. 15.6.2001 (Ext. P8) stating that on inspection of the document (Ext. P7) it is revealed that the property described in the document 18 cents comprised in resurvey 19.20.585 is Kallaipuzha and 2 cents in survey No. 586 is road and 79 cents in survey No. 587 is river puramboke as recorded in the registers maintained by the 1st respondent. The petitioner was directed to produce evidence regarding the possession of the said properties by the 2nd respondent obtained from the revenue authorities. It is also stated that the power of attorney executed by the 2nd respondent for execution of Ext. P1 sale deed must satisfy the requirement of S.33 of the Registration Act.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent was not justified in requiring the petitioner to produce possession certificate in respect of the property which is sought to be conveyed. It is also stated that the 1st respondent has no authority under the Registration Act to enquire into the title or possession over the property sought to be conveyed as per the document and that under S.35 of the said Act the 1st respondent is bound to register the document if the conditions stipulated in the said sections are complied with. According to the petitioner, Ext. P7 document satisfies all the requirements of the Registration Act and therefore the 1st respondent cannot refuse the registration of the said document for reasons other than what is provided under S.21, S.23, S.28, S.32, S.35 and S.74 of the said Act.

(3.) A statement is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. The statement relies on a circular dt. 12.2.2001 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated therein that difficulties and loss of money had been experienced by the public on account of registration of documents without verifying actual title of the executants of the documents and also without verifying the encumbrances, if any, in respect of the properties sought to be transferred. In the above circumstances directions are issued to the registering authorities to verify the prior documents to satisfy the right of the executants of the document over the property sought to be transferred at the time of registration. It was also provided that if the document is executed through a power of attorney of a title holder, the said power of attorney must also be verified to satisfy as to whether the power of attorney duly authorises the transfer of the property in question. It also provides that if any doubt arises regarding any of the matters mentioned above, the same must be intimated to the petitioner in writing and that the document shall be executed only after clearing such doubts. In the light of the said circular the stand of the 1st respondent is that since there is a doubt with regard to the title and possession of the property which is sought to be transferred as per Ext. P7 document, the petitioner was intimated the said doubt as per Ext. P8 communication and he was asked to produce the possession certificate obtained from the competent authorities.