The main legal point established is that the petitioner is entitled to execute and seek re-registration of the partition deed within 4 months, without the liability to pay stamp duty, but is liable to pay the registration fee at 1% of the fair value of the property allotted to him.

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

"I. Direct the respondents to permit the petitioner for incorporating his signature in Exhibit P1 or to ratify the deed for the completion of Exhibit P1 partition deed, by the egistration of which the entire stamp duty and registration fee has already been paid.

II. Declare that the petitioner is not entitled to pay the stamp duty and registration fee for the entire property involved in Exhibit P1, since the persons involved in Exhibit P1 partition deed has already paid the entire stamp duty and registration fee prevailed in the year 1980, at the time of registration of Exhibit P1.

III. Issue such other writ, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "

2. Heard Sri. V.C. Madhavankutty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. From the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner is arrayed as the 2nd party in Ext.P-1 partition deed No.985/1980 of SRO Andathode, Thrissur District. Ext.P-1 partition deed was in relation to the portioning of the properties of late Muhammed Musaliyar, the deceased father of the petitioner. The legal heirs of the deceased Muhammed Musaliyar, consisted of his wife and 5 children including the petitioner. The petitioner has been arrayed as 2nd party in Ext.P-1 partition deed. Except the petitioner, all other parties have duly signed and executed Ext.P-1 partition deed. However the share of all the co-owners/co-sharers including that of the petitioner has been specifically allotted in the said partition deed. Ext.P-1 partition deed was duly registered before the SRO, Andathode on 10.10.1980. There does not appear to be any dispute that the entire stamp duty and registration fee payable for the registration of Ext.P-1 partition deed was duly paid by the parties concerned and even if the petitioner had also signed and executed the said deed, the stamp duty and registration fee payable was sufficient for its registration. According to the petitioner, he was then employed abroad and therefore he could not take steps to come to India, to sign and execute the said document.

4. It is averred that, after registration of Ext.P-1 partition deed certain transactions are made on the basis of that document and the document has also been duly acted upon by the parties concerned. Now some of the executants in Ext.P-1 had attempted to create mortgage in respect of their respective shares, there was some objections raised that the document is incomplete in the absence of the signature and execution by the petitioner in the said document. So also it is stated that against the properties of certain sharers, mutation has been denied on that fault. Immediate grievance of the petitioner is that, his attempts to mortgage the property and to get the property mutated in respect of his share mentioned in Ext.P-1 cannot be acted upon as he has not so far signed and executed the document.

5. In order to complete the formalities of execution and registration of the document to the extent it is concerning with the petitioner's share, the petitioner had made enquiries and the officials of the 1st respondent Sub Registrar had informed that the petitioner will have to pay stamp duty considering the present fair value in respect of the entire property covered by partition deed. The 1st respondent has now issued Ext.P-4 letter dated 6.3.2018 addressed to the petitioner on the above said matters. The relevant portion of paragraph 2 & 3 of Ext.P-4 letter reads as follows.

Xxx xxx xxx

(emphasis applied)

It is in the light of these factual averments that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the aforementioned prayers.

6. It can be seen from a reading of Ext.P-4 that the 1st respondent Sub Registrar has made mention about a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case in M