NSS KARAYOGAM Vs. THE SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 document by which the 1st respondent registered cancellation of Ext.P2 document, which was executed in favour of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, on the ground that the 1st respondent - Registering Authority took a unilateral decision without making any enquiry or notice to the petitioner.

(2.) N.S.S.Karayogam No.333, near Alumekkavu Temple, Marankoli is the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is in absolute possession and enjoyment of 40 cents of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.333/4 Block No.25 of Njeezhoor Village, Vaikom Taluk along with Alumekkavu Bhagavathi Temple Marangoli. The petitioner claims that the affairs of the Temple are managed by it for the last more than 36 years. Ext.P2 document no.535/1984 was executed on 28.02.1984, by the 2nd respondent representing members of Komana Mana, entrusting 80 cents of the aforesaid land having a total extent of 2.56 acres, to the petitioner. It is stated that the actual extent of land including the temple was only 40 cents. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties including the Temple since 1977. Manimala Family, which obtained leasehold right over the 2.56 acres of land of the original titleholder Komana Mana, had filed Original Suit No.88/1984 filed before the Munsiff Court, Vaikkom against the petitioner, its office bearers as well as the 3rd respondent, Komana mana, claiming ownership and possession over the property. According to petitioner, he was the sole contestant in the suit and even though the suit was decreed against the petitioner by the Munsiff Court, it was set aside in A.S.No.17/1988 filed by petitioner. Manimala Family thereupon filed S.A.No.891/1990 before this Court. When the matter was pending consideration of this Court, the parties entered into a compromise and accordingly the Second Appeal was disposed of recording the terms of settlement arrived at. Petitioner's case is that 2nd respondent had in the meanwhile, executed Ext.P2 document entrusting 80 cents (in Ext P2 it is shown as 60 cents) of land in Sy.No.396/1 of Njeezhur Village along with the Alummekkave Temple and movable and immovable properties with the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the document was executed fixing the value of the property as Rs.3,000/ - (Rupees Three thousand only) and accordingly document No.535/84 was registered in Sub Registry Office, Kaduthuruthy. According to petitioner, even though 80 cents of land along with Temple and movable and immovable properties were transferred to the petitioner, as per Ext P2 document, the actual extent of the land was only 40 cents. The petitioner claims to be in absolute possession and enjoyment over the said property since then, paying basic tax under separate thandaperu account since 1984 -85. It is also stated that the petitioner has effected several modifications and constructions in the said property and had been properly managing the affairs of the Temple out of its own funds. While so, the petitioner received a lawyer notice dated 27.09.2013 asking him to hand over the temple and the properties to 2nd respondent saying that Ext.P2 document was cancelled. It was only then that petitioner came to know about the cancellation of Ext.P2 document as per Ext.P6 cancellation deed No.1708/2013. According to the petitioner, the cancellation of the document as per Ext.P6 is illegal and the registration of the cancellation deed by the 1st respondent without notice to the petitioner is beyond his authority and hence it is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent ought to have made an enquiry when the deed was presented for registration and a mere look on Ext.P2 deed which was sought to be cancelled would have revealed that the petitioner is a party having interest in the property. More over what was sought to be cancelled was a document executed in the year 1984 and the 1st respondent has registered it without looking in to any of these aspects, contrary to section 51 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the provisions contained in the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 etc. According to the petitioner, even though the document is described as 'Bharana Udambadi, in effect, it is a settlement deed, in which case the petitioner was a party on whom the first respondent ought to have served notice before registering the deed of cancellation. Referring to the provisions contained in the Stamp Act and the fact that the stamp duty remitted was a sum of Rs.75/ - (Rupees Seventy five only) as in the case of bottomry bond, it is stated that the 1st respondent did not observe the provisions contained in the Stamp Act and in the Registration Act before registering Ext.P6. The petitioner also refers to Rule 191 of the Registration Rules framed by the Inspector General of Registration, under which the Sub Registrar was bound to refuse documents when presented for registration.