Allowed

Nilambur Rubber Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2024WP(C)/6889/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration of sale deeds based on complex legal premises regarding title, lease history, or ownership that are not apparent from a mere glance at the documents. The Court observed that such issues are beyond the Registrar's limited jurisdiction to enquire, which is restricted to verifying the apparent competence of the executant.

What did the court decide?

The Ext.P3 memos refusing registration were set aside, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to register the sale deeds produced as Ext.P2.

Nilambur Rubber Company Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2024/3RD SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO.6102 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 NILAMBUR RUBBER COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P CHERIAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.M.C.POTHEN JUNIOR, SULTHANA BUNGALOW, MALAPARAMBU P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673009.

¶8

2 ALAVI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, NELLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA P.O., CHUNGATHARA AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679334.

¶9

BY ADVS. MANU VYASAN PETER P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE B.ANUSREE MEERA P.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶12

2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, GOVT. OF KERALA, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695035.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505.

¶14

4 SUB-REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505.

¶15

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHUNGATHARA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505.

¶16

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

*ADDL.R6 T.N.SURENDRANATHAN THIRUMULPAD, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O.N.K.SARADA THAMPATTY, RESIDING AT 204B, HILITE RESIDENCY, HILITE CITY, PALAZHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 014

¶19

*ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.03.2024 IN IA 1/2024 IN WP(C) 6102 /2024.

¶20

BY ADVS. SANTHEEP ANKARATH P.ANIRUDHAN HANIL KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER(REVENUE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).6889/2024, THE COURT ON 25.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶23

- 3 -

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2024/3RD SRAVANA, 1946

¶27

WP(C) NO.6889 OF 2024

¶28

PETITIONERS:

¶29

1 NILAMBUR RUBBER COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P CHERIAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.M.C.POTHEN JUNIOR, SULTHANA BUNGALOW, MALAPARAMBU P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673009.

¶30

2 C.N. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, CHERIYATHU HOUSE, CHUNKATHARA P.O., PALUNDA, CHUNKATHARA AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679334.

¶31

3 SINDHU VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.C.N.VIJAYAKUMAR, CHUNKATHARA P.O., PALUNDA, CHUNKATHARA AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679334.

¶32

BY ADVS. MANU VYASAN PETER P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE B.ANUSREE MEERA P.

¶33

RESPONDENTS:

¶34

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶35

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶36

- 4 -

¶37

2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, GOVT. OF KERALA, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695035.

¶38

3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505.

¶39

4 SUB-REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505.

¶40

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHUNGATHARA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505.

¶41

*ADDL.R6 T.N.SURENDRANATHAN THIRUMULPAD, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O.N.K.SARADA THAMPATTY, RESIDING AT 204B, HILITE RESIDENCY, HILITE CITY, PALAZHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 014

¶42

*ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.03.2024 IN IA 1/2024 IN WP(C) 6889 /2024.

¶43

BY ADVS.

¶44

SANTHEEP ANKARATH P.ANIRUDHAN

¶45

HANIL KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER(REVENUE)

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).6102/2024, THE COURT ON 25.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

'C.R'

- 5 -

JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 25^th day of July, 2024

¶52

The subject matter of both these Writ Petitions is similar and both seek to quash Ext.P3 memos issued by the 4^th respondent/Sub Registrar refusing to register sale deeds, produced as Ext.P2 in both the Writ Petitions.

¶53

2. Registration is refused vide Ext.P3 memo, on the premise that the petitioner company, the vendor in Ext.P2 sale deeds, has only possessory

¶54

rights over the property sought to be transferred. The 1^st petitioner company has neither the ownership, nor the jenmom rights over that property. Ext.P3 - after referring to various aspects as to whether the petitioner company can be treated as a 'tenant' and whether

¶55

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶56

- 6 -

¶57

the petitioner could prescribe its title by adverse possession etc - ultimately finds that the Managing Director representing the petitioner company has no right to transfer the ownership rights and refused registration, accordingly.

¶58

3. Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned Senior

¶59

Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.P.B.Subramanyan on behalf of the petitioners; Sri.M.H.Hanil Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) on behalf of respondents 1 to 5; and Sri.Santheep Ankarath on behalf of additional respondent no.6. Perused the records.

¶60

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aspects, which are seen referred to in Ext.P3 memo, as regards the competence of the 1^st petitioner company to convey the ownership rights etc., are not matters, over which, the 4^th respondent/Sub Registrar can probe and issue

¶61

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶62

- 7 -

¶63

directions. Extraneous matters, beyond the competence and jurisdiction, have been considered to refuse the registration of sale deeds, marked as Ext.P2 in the Writ Petitions. Ext.P3 memo, therefore, cannot stand the test of law and hence, liable to be set aside, is the submission. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that, part of the large extent property which belonged to the petitioner company was earlier presented for registration, in which occasion also, a 'No

¶64

Objection Certificate' from the Revenue Authorities clarifying, whether the land in question is exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, was insisted upon. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No.18155/2021 directed registration of the document and the consequent transfer of registry, without insisting for the N.O.C. Learned Senior Counsel would point out that Exts.P6 to P9 were documents of a similar nature, which were registered without any demur

¶65

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶66

- 8 -

¶67

on the question of title. Therefore, the present objection vide Ext.P3 memos are illegal and unsustainable, is the final submission.

¶68

5. Learned counsel for the 6^th respondent, who was impleaded vide orders in I.A.No.1/2024, would submit that the 6^th respondent is the Receiver appointed for managing the estate of Nilambur Kovilakam in the suit, O.S.No.22/1961 of the Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode. It is further submitted that the 1^st petitioner company has no title over the property sought to be conveyed. Ext.P4 document, under which, the 1^st petitioner claims title would clearly indicate that the ownership of Nilambur estate is presently under the management of the 6^th respondent. Exts.P6 to P9 documents were executed misrepresenting the

¶69

facts and misleading this Court, as well as, the office of the Sub Registrar. Inasmuch as the 1^st Petitioner has no right to execute Ext.P2

¶70

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶71

- 9 -

¶72

documents, the 4^th respondent/Sub Registrar is well within his limits in refusing registration thereof. As regards the right of the Registrar to refuse registration, learned counsel would rely upon the following judgments of this Court:

¶73

i) Noble John v. State of Kerala [2010 (3)

¶74

KLT 941].

¶75

ii) Divakaran v. State of Kerala and Others [2016 (5) KHC 49].

¶76

iii) Santhosh Antonio S.Netto v. Joshy Thomas and Others [2020 (3) KHC 278 (DB)].

¶77

6. The 4^th respondent filed a counter affidavit

¶78

in both the Writ Petitions, contending inter alia that, Nilambur Kovilakam is the owner of the property sought to be transferred, which was leased out to the 1^st petitioner company for a period of 12 years, which period expired in the year 1962. The recital in the sale deeds that the

¶79

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶80

- 10 -

¶81

petitioner company had ' verumpattam right' is wrong and the possessory right of the company is based on a conditional lease of the year 1950, wherein, the conditions of lease is clearly mentioned. The petitioner company only had possessory rights and the lease, after its expiry on 12.04.1962, has not been renewed. According to the 4^th respondent, the ownership of the property got legally vested with the Nilambur Kovilakam upon the expiry of the lease period, and that, the same is liable to be vested with the Government, if the family of the Kovilakam has no legal heirs. The 1^st petitioner company cannot therefore transfer the ownership of the property, is the contention of the 4^th respondent/Sub Registrar.

¶82

7. In answer to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the additional 6^th respondent, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied

¶83

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶84

- 11 -

¶85

upon the following judgments of this Court:

¶86

i) Eshaque v. Sub Registrar [2002 KHC 74].

¶87

ii) Sumathi and Another v. State of Kerala

¶88

and Others [2018 (5) KHC 586].

¶89

iii) Balachandran v. Sub Registrar [2023 KHC 9122].

¶90

8. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that

¶91

even going by the dictum in Noble John (supra), refusal of registration is possible, only if the person purporting to execute the document is not the person entitled to the property as on the date of execution and the same should be clear on

¶92

a cursory enquiry. In other words, the incompetence should be writ large, manifested by merely looking at the document and the prior deeds. Even if that yardstick is applied, the instant facts would not fall under the category, as made mention of in Noble John (supra). Learned Senior Counsel would elaborate that refusal of

¶93

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶94

- 12 -

¶95

registration in the instant facts is based on the

¶96

4^th respondent/Sub Registrar's understanding of law, as regards the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and its legal impact, which exercise is not sanctioned by Noble John (supra). In Divakaran (supra), reliance was placed on Noble John (supra) and the facts dealt with in that case will not aid the 6^th respondent in any manner. In Divakaran (supra), the issue was with respect to registration of a settlement deed by one person in respect of a property, over which, as many as 56 persons were co-owners based on a partition deed. Learned Senior Counsel would thus seek the Writ Petitions to be allowed.

¶97

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds considerable merit in the contentions urged in these Writ Petitions. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, registration of sale

¶98

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶99

- 13 -

¶100

deeds marked as Ext.P2 in the Writ Petitions is not based on any illegality or incompetence, which is decipherable from a mere look at Ext.P2 sale deeds. Instead, it is based on the alleged legal premise that, what has been executed in favour of the petitioner company was not a verumpattam lease, but was, infact, a conditional lease, circumscribed by the conditions specified in the lease deed. Ext.P4, again, is based on the premise that the said lease arrangement expired in the year 1962, whereafter, the petitioner company cannot have any ownership over the property sought to be conveyed, but had only possessory rights. Further, Ext.P3 takes into account a legal premise that upon the expiry of the lease, the ownership of the property will revert back to the Nilambur Kovilakam. Ext.P3

¶101

even goes to the extent of saying that nonrenewal of the lease has visited the Government with financial consequences. Still further,

¶102

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶103

- 14 -

¶104

Ext.P3 states that the petitioner company cannot be treated as a 'tenant' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that the company cannot prescribe its title by adverse possession. It is based on the above referred premises that registration of Ext.P2 sale deeds have been refused.

¶105

10. This Court is afraid, whether the 4^th respondent/Sub Registrar has completely exceeded and overlooked its limited jurisdiction under the Registration Act. It goes without saying that the registration of the documents does not vouch the title in respect of the property being conveyed to the purchaser. Nor does the Sub Registrar, by his official act of registration, expressly or impliedly represents the conveyance of a valid title unto the purchaser. It is for the purchaser to satisfy the availability of a valid title of the property, which is sought to be purchased. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the

¶106

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶107

- 15 -

¶108

petitioner company had only possessory rights, it cannot be held that such rights cannot be transferred. Nor could the registration of a sale

¶109

deed be refused, on the premise that the executant has no ownership, but only possession over the property conveyed.

¶110

11. Coming to Noble John (supra), this Court endorse the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that the reasons, which weighed the Sub Registrar in Ext.P4, are not reasons, which are decipherable from a cursory enquiry, or for that matter, a mere look of the documents concerned. The incompetence of the executant should be of a fundamental nature, which goes to the root of the matter and should be writ large, manifested from the face of the record/document. The reasons in Ext.P3 are, as already referred above, based on legal premises, especially within the contours of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and

¶111

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶112

- 16 -

¶113

its legal consequences. Needless to say that the Sub Registrar is not a competent person to conclude and decide such issues and to refuse registration on such basis. It is worthwhile in this regard to take stock of the fact that no proceeding, whatsoever, has been initiated so far by any member of the Nilambur Kovilakam, or for that matter, by the additional 6^th respondent herein, for recovery of the properties, which is sought to be conveyed.

¶114

12. In the above referred circumstances, this court is of the opinion that Ext.P3 memos issued in both the Writ Petitions cannot be sustained. The same are accordingly set aside.

¶115

13. Resultantly, these Writ Petitions are allowed and there will be a direction to the 4^th

¶116

respondent/Sub Registrar to register the sale deeds, produced as Ext.P2 in these Writ

¶117

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶118

- 17 -

¶119

Petitions, provided the same answers other requirements under the Registration Act and the

¶120

Stamp Act.

¶121

Sd/-

¶122

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶123

¶124

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶125

- 18 -

¶126

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6102/2024

¶127

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶128

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.1197615 DATED 24.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHUNGATHARA VILLAGE.

¶129

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 04.01.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUBREGISTRAR, EDAKKARA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 05.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR, EDAKKARA.

¶130

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOC. NO.2443/1950 OF SRO, VANDOOR DATED 18.11.1950.

¶131

¶132

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5129 OF 2021 OF SRO EDAKKARA DATED 20.11.2021. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3706 OF 2022 OF SRO EDAKKARA DATED 20.07.2022.

¶133

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3707 OF 2022 OF SRO EDAKKARA DATED 22.07.2022.

¶134

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.04.1999 IN SM NO.4/98/B ON THE FILE OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TIRUR.

¶135

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.04.2021 FOR THE F.Y 2021-22 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHUNGATHARA VILLAGE.

¶136

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶137

- 19 -

¶138

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.06.2022 FOR THE F.Y 2022-23 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHUNGATHARA VILLAGE.

¶139

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2021 IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, CALICUT.

¶140

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶141

ANNEXURE R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.10.2016 APPOINTING THE APPLICANT AS RECEIVER.

¶142

W.P(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024

¶143

- 20 -

¶144

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6889/2024

¶145

PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS:

¶146

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.1197615 DATED 24.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHUNGATHARA VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 04.01.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUBREGISTRAR, EDAKKARA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 05.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR, EDAKKARA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOC. NO.2443/1950 OF SRO VANDOOR DATED 18.11.1950 TOGETHER WITH THE TYPED COPY.

¶147

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2021 IN W.P(C) NO.18155 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO. 4448/2021 DATED 13.04.2021 OF SRO, EDAKKARA. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5129 OF 2021 OF SRO, EDAKKARA DATED 20.11.2021. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3706 OF 2022 OF SRO, EDAKKARA DATED 20.07.2022. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3707 OF 2022 OF SRO, EDAKKARA DATED 22.07.2022.

¶148

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶149

ANNEXURE R6 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.10.2016 APPOINTING THE APPLICANT AS RECEIVER

Nilambur Rubber Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilambur Rubber Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh Kumar Vs Sreedharan Pillai

Surendran Vs Baby

State of Kerala Vs T.K.Kuruvila

Vishwa Hindu Parishad Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Manoj Vs Jobin

Nilambur Rubber Company Ltd. Vs State of Kerala