Petitioner challenged refusal to register deeds based on an attachment order from a 28-year-old decree. Court found execution proceedings time-barred and quashed the rejection, directing registration.
Impugned rejection set aside; documents to be registered if in order without delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 22660 of 2018
PETITIONER:
PRABHAVATHY K, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, KALLAYIL HOUSE, TANUR, KUNNUMPURAM, PARIYAPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 302
BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
ADVS. SMT.N.DEEPA SRI.M.V.BALAGOPAL
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, MALAPPURAM-676 505 2. SUB REGISTRAR, TANUR-676 302
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C.VIDYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PBS
WP(C).No. 22660 of 2018 (F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1 |
TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 24.10.2017 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PARIYAPURAM |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 |
TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.05.2018 |
| EXT.P3 |
TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, DATED 16.07.2003 |
| EXT.P4 |
TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED FOR REGISTRATION ON 05.06.2018 |
| EXT.P5 |
TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED FOR REGISTRATION ON 05.06.2018 |
| EXT.P6 |
TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS, DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR |
| EXT.P7 |
TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS, DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR |
| EXT.P8 |
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS.NO.303/1990, DATED 20.11.1990 |
| EXT.P9 |
TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER IN IA.NO.2048/1990 IN OS.NO.303/1990, DATED 25.08.1990. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
PBS 18/7/2018
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 22660 of 2018
==================
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2018
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to be the joint owner of a property having an extent of 11.73 cents along with her deceased husband, Krishnan Kutty as per document No.465/1988 of SRO, Tanur, in re-survey No.123/2016 of Pariyapuram village. That after the death of Krishnan Kutty the petitioner, her son and daughter are the legal heirs. That the petitioner and her children decided to execute Ext.P-4 (gift deed executed by the petitioner and her daughter, in favour of her son) and P-5 (release deed executed by son and daughter, in favour of the petitioner) so as to avail a housing loan under the Prime Minister's Housing Scheme. That when the abovesaid documents as per Exts.P4 and P-5 were submitted for registration, the 2nd respondent SRO, Tanur has refused to register the said documents, which have been communicated as per Exts.P-6 and P-7 letters, stating that there is attachment over the said property passed by the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi, on 25.8.1990, etc. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:
W.P.(C)22660/18 - : 2 :-
W.P.(C)22660/18 - : 3 :-
Parappanangadi, which has disposed O.S.No. 303/1990, as to the date on which judgment and decree has been rendered in that O.S. and whether execution proceedings have now become time barred, etc.
W.P.(C)22660/18 - : 4 :-
again present Exts.P-4 and P-5 documents before the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar, SRO, Parappanangadi for registration and the 2nd respondent will register the said documents, if the said documents are otherwise in order, without any further delay. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for necessary information and further action. The office of the Advocate General will also forward certified copies of this judgment to the respondents for information and necessary action.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether registration of documents should be refused when underlying execution proceedings are time-barred.
Whether the High Court can quash the Registrar's rejection of documents based on an attachment order stemming from a time-barred decree.
Prabhavathy K
The District Registrar, Malappuram
Sub Registrar, Tanur
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
