Petitioner sought registration of a sale deed procured in 2014. Respondent Sub Registrar refused citing a 2019 attachment order regarding the previous owner's loan dues. Court held subsequent attachment does not affect prior sale rights and quashed the refusal.
Impugned attachment notice (Ex.P9) quashed and directive issued to register the sale deed.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
WP(C).No.22205 OF 2020(A)
PETITIONER/S:
K.P.JAYAN, AGED 38 YEARS,S/O PANGODA, KALPADA HOUSE, VENGANALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680586.
BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SURYANARAYANAN, KOKOORI HOUSE, VENGANALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680586.
2 THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELAKKARA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 680586.
3 THE DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (RR) THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680586.
R2 BY ADV. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SRI. K.P. HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.22205 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Sub Registrar, Chelakkara, in registering a document presented by the petitioner on the ground that there is a subsisting attachment towards the liabilities of the previous owner, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.
WP(C).No.22205 OF 2020 3
petitioner is the absolute owner and no fetters can be placed on the right of the petitioner to assign his property. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that he has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P9 and for quashing the same and for incidental reliefs. He has also sought for a direction to the 5th respondent to register Ext.P5 sale deed untrammelled by the attachment order and revenue recovery proceedings initiated under Exts.P8 and P9 order.
WP(C).No.22205 OF 2020 4
petitioner and Sri. Jawahar Jose, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.
the Apex court while considering the scope of Order XXXVIII Rule 10 and Section 64 of the CPC had occasion to hold that the sale deed executed prior to attachment before judgment can be registered subsequently and it will prevail over the attachment. The Apex Court had also held that a transaction of sale
WP(C).No.22205 OF 2020 5
having taken place prior to the institution of the suit cannot be said to have been made with the intention to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree.
289], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to hold that attachment before the judgment does not create any right, title or interest, but it only disables the judgment debtor to create any encumbrance on the property.
WP(C).No.22205 OF 2020 6
Though in Noble John v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 941], it has been held by this Court that the grounds mentioned in Rule 191 of the Rules are not exhaustive and that the Registrar can, for other valid reasons, declined to register a document, such refusal should be for legally tenable reasons and the same should be supported by statutory provisions. Having held that Ext.P9 notice will have no effect over the rights of the petitioner over the property covered under Ext.P1 sale deed, I hold that there was no justification on the part of the 5th respondent in refusing to register the document presented before the said authority.
In the result, this writ petition will stand allowed and Ext.P9 to the extent to which it relates to the property purchased by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 will stand quashed. As a result, if Ext.P5 sale deed is presented before the 5th respondent for the purpose of registration, the same shall be registered as per procedure and in consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the rules framed thereunder.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
WP(C).No.22205 OF 2020 7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1474/2014 OF SRO, CHELAKKARA. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.04.2015 FOR PAYMENT OF TAX RELATING TO 8.9 ARES OF PROPERTY IN RE.SY.NO.229/14 OF VENGANALLUR VILLAGE FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, VENGANALLUR. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE FOR 8.9 ARES OF PROPERTY IN RE.SY.NO.229/4 VENGANALLUR VILLAGE FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.1995 TO 06.05.2015. EXHIBIT P4 THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE VENGANALLUR TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE DEED PREPARED FOR REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY TO MR.P.K. KRISHNANKUTTY AND ANOTHER. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO. KL08024302504/2020 DATED 07.08.2020. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT VIDE CERTIFICATE NO.58/2020 DATED 24.09.2020. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO.5090/2020 DATED 24.09.2020 FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.1991 TO 23.09.2020 ISSUED BY SRO CHELLAKKARA. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/11/2015 IN WPC NO.34062/2015
/TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an attachment created for the liabilities of a previous owner affects the right of a subsequent bona fide purchaser to register the property.
Whether the Sub Registrar was justified in refusing to register a sale deed on the ground of a subsisting attachment order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa PatharExplained¶31
Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar [(1991) 1 SCC 715] · Who else cites this
S. Noorudeen v. V.S.Thiru Venkita ReddiyarExplained¶35
S. Noorudeen v. V.S.Thiru Venkita Reddiyar [(1996) 3 SCC 289] · Who else cites this
Noble John v. State of KeralaFollowed¶40
Noble John v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 941]
5 provisions across 4 enactments
K.P.JAYAN
SURYANARAYANAN
THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK
THE DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (RR) THALAPILLY TALUK
THE VILLAGE OFFICER VENGANALLUR
THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR CHELAKKARA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
