Dismissed

Annie Anotny v. the District Collector

Kerala HC3 Jan 2019WP(C)/21/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to restrain mutation of ancestral property gifted by the husband to a third party. The court held that registered documents cannot be challenged via writ but require civil proceedings under Section 83A of the Registration Act, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to initiate appropriate civil proceedings to challenge the validity of the registration.

Annie Anotny Vs the District Collector — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 13TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 21 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ANNIE ANOTNY AGED 67 YEARS W/O.ANTONY, RESIDING AT MALIYEKKAL CHEENATH, VALLACHIRA.P.O., KADALASSERI DESOM, VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS (PUTHURAN)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶11

COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680609.

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR 680609.

¶13

3 THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHERPU-680561.

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRCT-680562.

¶15

5 ANTONY AGED 74 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH, MALIYEKKAL CHEENATH, VALLACHIRA.P.O., KADALASSERI DESOM, VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK DISTRICT-680562.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

==================

¶20

W.P.(C).No. 21 of 2019

¶21

==================

¶22

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2019

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

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

¶25

“i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ or Order restraining respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 from mutating the property covered by Ext. P4 in the name of the donee;

¶26

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ or Order directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P5 within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice;

¶27

iii) To grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶28

Heard Sri.Abraham Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-5 will stand dispensed with.

¶29

The petitioner submits that she is the legally wedded wife of R-5. That due to difference of opinion, spouses are now living apart. The complaint of the petitioner is that the 5^th respondent has now gifted his ancestral property to one Smt.C.Padmavathi by wrongly styling her as his wife on the basis of Ext.P-4 registered settlement deed and that the matrimonial litigative proceedings are now pending between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent in the

¶30

W.P.(C)21/19 - : 3 :-

¶31

Family Court, Thrissur, as can be seen from Ext.P-2 O.P.No. 596/2018 seeking return of gold ornaments, etc. and Ext.P-3 M.C.No.469/2018 seeking maintenance, both on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur.

¶32

It is by now well settled by various rulings as the one in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, para 40 thereof , that once the document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document and the remedy of the aggrieved party is to challenge the registration and validity of the document before the civil court concerned. The exception to this common law position is that there should be specific and explicit provision in the Registration Act, which empowers the registration officer to cancel such documents. The only main provision contained in the Registration Act, 1908, in terms of Sec.83A thereof, is for cancellation of documents, which are allegedly executed on the basis of false personation and subject to the strict fulfillment of the various jurisdictional parameters mentioned therein. Going by the pleadings in the instant case, the petitioner has not made out a case for invoking the remedy under Sec. 83A of the

¶33

W.P.(C)21/19 - : 4 :-

¶34

Registration Act. Hence it is only to be ordered that in case the petitioner has any legally justiciable grievance as against the impugned Ext.P-4 registered settlement deed, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent court. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out her remedies in accordance with law. In the light of these aspects, the prayer in this Writ Petition cannot be granted.

¶35

With the abovesaid liberty, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of.

¶36

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶37

W.P.(C)21/19

¶38

: 5 :-

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.596/2018 ALONG WITH THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MC NO.469/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, SEEKING FOR MAINTENANCE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1876/1/2018 OF CERPU SRO. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01//2018 SUBMITED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

Annie Anotny v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annie Anotny v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreekumar C. Nair Vs the Village Officer

Somasundara Menon Vs District Registrar(General)

M.C.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Adinarayana Swamy Vs the Sub Registrar

Guru Swamy Vs State of Kerala

Shaju P.K., Vs the Union of India