V.JAYAKUMAR Vs. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.K.P.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner herein is the son of Late Venkitachala Kounder and Valliyammal. The petitioner, his four brothers, his four sisters and the wives and children of his deceased brothers, who are the legal representatives of late Venkitachala Kounder had effected partition of the properties of their father as per Ext.P-1 registered partition deed No.555/2016 dated 29.2.2016 of SRO, Olavakkode. It is further stated that the petitioner's father, late Venkitachala Kounder had originally obtained the said properties in question as per Ext.P-2 partition deed No.876/1971 of SRO Olavakkode. It is stated that when petitioners and others had executed Ext.P-1 partition deed, item No.2 of A schedule, item No.1 of B schedule, item No.2 of C schedule, item No.1 of D schedule, item No.1 of E schedule and items 1 & 2 of F schedule were mistakenly described as pertaining to "kanam" right instead of "jenmom" right. So, in view of the said mistake, the rights of the executants were described as "kanam" instead of "jenmom" in the registered partition deed. According to the petitioner, the mistake is only a clerical mistake and when the mistake came to the notice of the petitioner and other executants, they were advised that same can be rectified by a executing a rectification deed/correction deed in order to describe those properties as "jenmom right" instead of "kanam right". The petitioner and other executants were advised to approach the respondents to ascertain whether such a rectification deed could be executed and thereupon they had presented Ext.P-3 draft rectification deed dated 3.1.2017 before the respondents. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P-4 petition before the District Registrar, Palakkad. The 1 st respondent has now issued the impugned Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 25.1.2017 stating that the above said attempt to alter the description as "jenmom right" would amount to material difference from the right claimed in the original deed and moreover 3 out of the 14 executants of Ext.P-1 are not seen proposed to be parties to Ext.P-3 etc., and accordingly, the 1st respondent has ordered that Ext.P-3 cannot be treated as a rectification deed and that the stamp duty for conveyance and registration fee for conveyance should be remitted by the petitioner and other executants for the purpose of registration of Ext.P-3. It is this order at Ext.P-5 that is under challenge in this proceedings.