Petitioner approached the third respondent for registering Ext.P1, partition deed. On presentation, the third respondent made an enquiry regarding competency of the petitioner to present the above document for registration. It appears that the third respondent refused to register the document as petitioner failed to give cogent answers to the queries made by the third respondent. The third respondent refused to accept Ext.P1 by Ext.P2, refusal communication dated 26.12.2011. It is stated in Ext.P2, petitioner was unable to establish ownership of the property.

2. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed. It is stated in the counter affidavit that, on perusal of the documents, the Sub Registrar has found that the executants have no legal rights over the property covered by Ext.P1 except a mere recital that the property was taken by their predecessor, Smt.Thundamma through oral lease from the jenmy.

3. The petitioner need not establish the title before the Registrar to get his document registered. It is to be noted that the possessory right is also partiable in law. The establishment of the nature of the right or ownership of the property is not a