SIVADASAN Vs. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri. Mahesh. V. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondent No.1. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to contesting respondents 2 to 4 will stand dispensed with.

(3.) As per the case projected by the petitioner, in the year 1991, his father Sri. Krishnan had entered into an oral agreement for sale in respect of his property (nilam) having an extent of 27.75 cents comprised in survey No.163/2 (Resurvey No. 262/10) of Ponmala Village, Tirur Taluk, Malappuram District with one Bhavadasan Namboodiri, who is the predecessor of respondents 2 and 3 for an amount of 16,500/- and had paid an amount of Rs.501.00 as an advance for the same day. Thereafter, on the request of the said Bhavadasan Namboodiri, the entire balance amount has also been paid to him through one Raman Namboodiri, S/o. Sreekumaran Namboodiri, Pullanikkatt Mana etc. The said Raman Namboodiri had paid the said amount to Sri. Bhavadasan Namboodiri and thereafter, the said Bhavadasan Namboodiri had handed over possession of the said property to the petitioner's father and that he is in possession of the said property and cultivated the paddy till his death in year 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner's family members are continuing cultivation in that property. Later, Sri. Bhavadasan Namboodiri had expired in the year 1999. While so, the 2nd and 3rd respondent, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Bhavadasan Namboodiri had executed Ext.P3 sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent , whereby conveying the very same landed property, which was already parted to their predecessor to the petitioner's predecessor. That, though respondents 2 and 3 were fully aware about the fact that the property was parted by their predecessor to the petitioner's father, they suppressed those aspects and made false statements in the recitals that the said property is under their ownership and possession. According to the petitioner, the said recitals made by contesting respondents 2 and 3 in Ext.P3 sale deed that they are having ownership and possession of the subject property are clearly false and wrong and the said recitals have been made by them knowing fully well that those factual recitals are false and wrong , in as much as very much within the knowledge of contesting respondents 2 and 3 that the entire property was already parted to the petitioner's father and that the said property is under the control, possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his family etc. On this basis, the case of the petitioner is that such recitals made by contesting respondents 2 and 3 in Ext.P3 sale deed would amount to 'intentionally making false statements' as envisaged in Sec. 82(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 and that the said act on the part of contesting respondents 2 and 3 would amount to their committing an offence under that provision, which is prosecutable under Sec. 83. Thereupon, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P6 petition dtd. 6/8/2018 before the 1st respondent Sub Registrar pointing out this aspects and requesting that prosecution measures should be launched against contesting respondents 2 and 3 as per Sec. 82, for making such false recitals in Ext.P3 sale deed etc. The said request of the petitioner has been denied by the 1st respondent Sub Registrar as per the impugned Ex.P7 communication dtd. 21/8/2018 on the ground that since the entire formalities for the registration of Ext.P3 had already been completed, it is for the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedies before the courts concerned for ventilating his grievances and complaints in that regard. Ext.P7 letter dtd. 21/8/2018 issued by the 1st respondent Sub Registrar reads as follows: