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

“(i) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P5 as highly illegal and arbitrary.

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent herein to register Exhibit P3 sale deed within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) to issue a declaration that the 1st petitioner is entitled to execute Exhibit P3 sale deed and sell 4.80 Ares (Equivalent to 11.86 Cents) on the basis of Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 since that extent of property is available within the boundaries mentioned therein after resurvey.

(iv) to pass such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Heard Sri. S. Ranjit (Kottayam), learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. According to the petitioners, they had presented Ext.P-3 sale deed dated 23.8.2018 executed by the petitioners for registration. That inspite of satisfying all statutory formalities as to the stamp duty, registration fee, etc., the 3rd respondent-SRO, Kadambazhipuram, Palakkad District, has refused to register the deed and returned it as per Ext.P-5 letter. In Ext.P-5 letter dated 23.8.2018, the 3rd respondent -SRO has stated that though Ext.P-3 sale deed is for conveyance of 4.80 ares of property, as per prior title deed of Ext.P-1, the extent of property covered thereunder is only 4.05 ares and no proof of title for the balance 0.75 ares (viz, 4.80 ares – 4.05 ares = 0.75 ares) is produced. The petitioners would point out that execution and registration of Ext.P-1 prior title deed was before the conduct of resurvey for those properties but that when resurvey proceedings were finalised, the 1st petitioner's property lying within the boundaries on all four sides was measured by the survey officer and it was found that the actual extent of Ext.P-1 sale deed is 4.80 ares. On a comparison of Ext.P-1 deed and P-2 thandaper account, the petitioners would point out that the boundaries of the property shown by those documents are one and the same and the difference crept only due to re-survey. Accordingly, it is urged by the petitioners that the well settled legal principles in the matter of interpretation of deeds is that when there is a conflict between the description of the boundaries and the extent of the land given in the document, the mentioned boundaries will predominate. It is urged that the said legal principles are well settled and it has been followed in decisions as in Ibrahim Koyakutty v. Varghese, reported in 1951 KLT 117, Krishnamoorthi Iyer v. Janaki Amma, reported in 1957 KLT 202, Savithri Ammal v. Padmavathy, reported in 1990 KHC 295, etc. It is further pointed out that the grounds stated in Ext.P-5 letter cannot be countenanced in law as they do not come within the purview of the requirements mentioned in Rule 31 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) framed under the enabling provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908 or any impediment dealt with in Rules 30 and 36 of the Registration Rules (Kerala). Further, it is pointed out that Rule 23 of the Registration Rules deals with the particulars required for Sec.21 of the Registration Act. Accordingly, it is argued that the cumulative effect of the said statutory provisions required the description of the boundaries should contain all those particulars sufficient to identify the property. Hence it is urged that the 1st petitioner is absolutely entitled in law and competent to execute Ext.P-3 sale deed to convey 4.80 ares of properties to the 2nd petitioner not only on the basis of his title but also on the basis of his actual possession which has been finalised in the re-survey statutory proceedings. It is also pointed out that Rule 67 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) will not permit the 3rd respondent to make any enquiry into the validity of the document sought to be reg