Important Points:
• Mere process of drawing up a formal partition deed within some of the co-owners will not amount to finalization and effectuation of the process of partition between all the co-owners in the manner known to law
• The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for partition in respect of such a plea of such an excluded co-owner and decide the matter in accordance with law-The point to be appreciated is that such a mere process of drawing up a formal partition deed within some of the co-owners will not amount to finalization and effectuation of the process of partition between all the co-owners in the manner known to law

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

“I. Issue a Writ pf Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to quash Exhibit-P3;

II. Declare that the action of the respondent in issuing Exhibit-P3 notice on wrong assumption; without any authority of law and hence liable to be declared as invalid;

and

III. to issue such other Writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. The petitioner and his three brothers viz., Vasu, Velayudhan and Pushpakaran @ Appu are the legal heirs/legal representatives of their deceased father. After the death of the father, the petitioner (Parameswaran) and his brothers, Vasu, of the co-sharers and his share of property has also been duly allotted there under.

3. Later, the above said Vasu had died and it is stated that his legal representatives are Shajan, Sheeja, Shila and Sarada. It is stated that when Sri. Pushpakaran @ Appu had requested that his share is to be duly allotted, so as to register such document, as such right could be claimed by him only on the basis of a registered deed to which he is an executant and signatory, etc. It is stated that thereupon the petitioner and his other brothers as well as the legal representatives of the deceased brother Vasu were advised to execute yet another partition deed. Accordingly, the petitioner (Parameswaran), Velayudhan, Pushpakaran @ Appu (who is not a signatory of Ext.P-2 partition deed) and the above said Shajan, Sheeja, Shila and Sarada, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Vasu, had executed Ext.P-1 partition deed dated 01.06.2017 and the same was registered as deed No.1094/2017 before the SRO, Akkikkavu, whereby the respective shares have been allotted to the deed of the above said executants of Ext.P-1 registered partition deed dated 01.06.2017. It is not in serious dispute that the entire stamp duty (as referred to in Ext.P-5) and registration fee has been duly paid for Ext.P-2 partition deed No.119/1992, in respect of the shares of all the co-owners mentioned therein, including the non-executant co-owner Sri. Pushpakaran. So also, it is not under serious dispute that the entire stamp duty and registration fee for the execution of Ext.P-1 partition deed No.1094/2017 dated 01.06.2017 has also been paid and registration fee has been paid thereon @1% of the fair value of the entire subject property is concerned in that partition deed and it is not restricted to the individual share of the non-executant/excluded co-owner Sri.Pushpakaran. However, the petitioner and the other executants of Ext.P-1 deed have omitted to mention therein about the execution and registration of the previous deed as per Ext.P-2 deed No.119/1992 of SRO, Akkikkavu.

4. Later, the respondent-District Registrar has issued the impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 12.11.2018 ordering therein that the executants of Ext.P-1 deed dated 01.06.2017 have not disclosed about the execution and registration of the previous deed as per Ext.P-2 and that execution of a subsequent partition deed, as per Ext.P-1 dated 01.06.2017 as between the co-owners, who have already executed and registered previously Ext.P-2 partition deed, is illegal and improper and further that the petitioner should pay further amount of stamp duty coming to Rs.1000/-and registration fee coming to Rs.51,020/-, along with interest thereon @18% p.a. from 01.06.2017 (date of execution of Ext.P-1 deed), etc. and in the event of the non-payment of the said demanded amounts, revenue recovery proceedings will be set in motion, etc. It is this proceedings at Ext.P-3 dated 12.11.2018 issued by the respondent-District Registrar, that is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

5. Going by the admitted facts and pleadings in this case all the co-owners had been formally shown as executants in Ext.P-2 partition deed No.119/1992 and shares of all the co-owners have also been duly allotted to them as per Ext.