T N SIDDIQUE HAJI, S/O PALLIPARAMBIL NAVOOR RAWTHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioners, they had purchased 13 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.457/9 of Mundur I Village of Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad Revenue District from contesting respondent No.3 on 25.6.2009 as per Ext.P-1 sale deed No.2749/2009 of S.R.O., Parali, Palakkad. It is further pointed out that the said property originally owned by the grandfather of the 3rd respondent Sri.Veera Sahib Rawther and the grandfather and his wife had executed a gift deed in respect of the said property in favour of the 3rd respondent as per document No.899/1972. That thereafter, the grandparents had cancelled the said document No.899/1972 as per document No.1223/1974. That, after the death of the grandfather of the 3rd respondent, the grandmother of the 3rd respondent along with other legal heirs of his grandfather as per Ext.P-2 document No.81/1978 had executed the gift deed in favour of the 3rd respondent. It is further pointed out that Ext.P-2 document contains the details of document No.899/1972 and document No.1223/1974.

(2.) It is further pointed out that subsequently, the petitioners came to know that in Ext.P-1 title deed, instead of mentioning Ext.P-2 (document No.81/1978), the details of the original gift deed, i.e., document No.899/1972, which has been cancelled as per document No.1223/1974, had been wrongly mentioned. When the petitioners came to know about the mistake, they approached the 3rd respondent requesting to execute a rectification/correction deed. But the 3rd respondent refused to do so initially and later claimed exorbitant amount as consideration for executing the correction deed, it is stated.

(3.) It is further pointed out that the petitioners had submitted Ext.P-6 representation dated 19.6.2018 to the 2nd respondent-SRO, Parali, requesting to carryout the correction by incorporating the correct details, since all the documents referred to therein are in the custody of the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the alleged non-consideration of Ext.P-6 representation by the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has taken the stand that correction could be carried out only by way of a correction deed. The petitioners would contend that civil remedy is available to the petitioners under Sec.26 of the Specific Relief Act and the 3rd respondent is using the said mistake as a weapon to demand more money from the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects, the instant Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed seeking the following reliefs: