MATHEW OUSEPH Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for various reliefs including a direction to call for the original of Ext. P5 document and to quash the same. The challenge is against the cancellation deed said to have been executed unilaterally, purportedly to cancel Ext. P1 document. As per Ext. P1 document, the petitioner's mother Eli settled her properties to her children and the petitioner obtained a total extent of 31.75 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 1026/6 of Kothamangalam Village. Ext. P2 is the receipt showing payment of land tax, dated 11.5.2011 and Ext. P3 is the copy of the possession certificate issued by the Village Officer showing that the petitioner is in possession of the said property.

(2.) In connection with an application for availing a bank loan, the petitioner applied for an encumbrance certificate and Ext. P4 is the copy of the said certificate. It contains an endorsement that Ext. P1 has been cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a copy of the cancellation deed which is produced as Ext. P5. The date of Ext. P5 is 1.4.2003. According to the petitioner, the mother was completely laid up at that time and she finally expired on 25.7.2003 and she was not in a position to execute any document. The allegation is that this document was registered at the instance of the third respondent.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the third respondent has entered appearance.