Disposed

Jolly Stephen v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Mar 2009WP(C)/6513/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register documents due to alleged continuing force of an interim order. The Court held that an interim order automatically vacates upon final dismissal of the proceeding if not specifically saved, making lack of communication irrelevant for registration purposes.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of, directing that the interim order in WP(C) No.7799/07 does not bar registration of documents by the owner.

Jolly Stephen Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 6513 of 2009(H)

PETITIONER :

JOLLY STEPHEN, AGED 50, S/O. STEPHEN KOYIKKARAMPAMBIL HOUSE, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT , GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) NEAR SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

THE SUB REGISTRAR, THRIPOONITHURA THRIPOONITHURA PO, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 6513 of 2009

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2009

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to delete entry nos.1 and 2 in Exhibit P2 in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in WP© No.7799/2007.

¶23

The facts of the case are that in respect of the property which is included at Sl. Nos.1 and 2 in Exhibit P2 Encumbrance Certificate, there was conflicting claims of title. Writ petition No. 7799/2007 was filed by Shri. Jain Augustine and in that writ petition, the petitioner herein was the 4^th respondent. It would appear that at the stage of admission, this Court passed an interim order prohibiting alienation of the property, and that order appears to have been entered in the records of the second respondent. When the writ petition came up for final hearing, in view of the conflicting claims of title raised by the respective parties, taking the view that such controversy can be resolved only in a civil suit and that writ petition was closed by Exhibit P1 judgment dated 12/11/2007 leaving it open to the parties to move civil court.

¶24

Petitioner submits that subsequently the petitioner in the writ petition filed a suit as O.S No.1085/2007, in which also,

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 6513 /2009

¶26

¶27

although an interim order was initially passed, that was later vacated and same was communicated to the 3^rd respondent by Exhibit P3. In spite of all these, it is contended that though as at present there is no order either of this Court or of the civil court restraining alienation of property, when the documents alienating the property were presented for registration, the 3^rd respondent refused to register the documents for the reason that the interim order passed by this Court is still in force and that any order vacating the interim order has not been communicated. It is in view of this, this writ petition is filed for appropriate orders.

¶28

Once a case is finally disposed, unless any interim order passed in the case is specifically saved in the final judgment, the interim order will automatically stand vacated. A reading of Exhibit P1 shows that no such order has been passed in the said judgment and hence interim order, if any, passed prior to the judgment does not survive the final judgment. Therefore, want of communication cannot be a reason for the 3^rd respondent to decline the registration of any documents.

¶29

Learned Government pleader however referred to me

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 6513 /2009

¶31

¶32

Section 89(6) of the Registration Act and submitted that if an interim order is vacated by a court, the same should be communicated to the authority concerned. First of all Section 89 has relevance only in a case of attachment . If that be so Section 89(6) can be of no relevance as far as this case is concerned.

¶33

Therefore, in view of the dismissal of WP(C) No. 7799/2007 as per Exhibit P1 judgment, the entries in Exhibit P2 Encumbrance Certificate are incorrect.

¶34

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition making it clear that

¶35

any interim order passed in WP(C) No.7799/07 will not stand in the way of the 3^rd respondent registering documents executed by the owner of the property covered by the said judgment.

¶36

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶37

scm

Jolly Stephen v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jolly Stephen v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarojam Vs Jayakesan

Sunitha Vs Johnson and Others

Ganeshan Vs State of Kerala