Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
SAROJINI – Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C).No. 10468 of 2012 (G)
Decided on : 14.8.2014
Registration Act 1908 - Section 17 - Registration - Right when can claim - Documents of which registration is compulsory - Whether right or ownership of the property is pre-condition for registration under the Registration Act - Challenged - Held, 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 pre-condition for registration under the Registration Act. The competency to present a document alone can be disputed by the registering authority. The power to question competency cannot be equated with power to demand establishment of the right over the property. If somebody's else right is entered in the records, of course competency can be disputed. In the absence of such objection, Registering Authority cannot insist for production of the documents to establish right. The power to question the right or ownership over the property is beyond the scope of enquiry as contemplated under the Registration Act
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 pre-condition for registration under the Registration Act. The competency to present a document alone can be disputed by the registering authority. The power to question competency cannot be equated with power to demand establishment of the right over the property. If somebody's else right is entered in the records, of course competency can be disputed. In the absence of such objection, Registering Authority cannot insist for production of the documents to establish right. The power to question the right or ownership over the property is beyond the scope of enquiry as contemplated under the Registration Act. If the executants of the documents do not have any title or interest or ownership of the property nevertheless, even by registering the said document, it cannot confer any right over the property. That being so, the third respondent is directed to register Ext.P1, but satisfying other conditions for registration.
Writ Petition is disposed of.
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
