IMPORTANT POINTS
Whether, the petitioner who has approached the statutory authority under section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the authority under the Registration Act, was right in approaching the High Court under Article 226 after dismissal of the application by the Registrar under the Registration Act ? It was answered in the fact scenario that the writ petition filed during the pendency of the adjudication of dispute under section 64 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is not a remedy rightly pursued by the petitioner. Therefore, in our view, the proposition of law laid down thereunder has some similarity to the issue of unilateral cancellation of a registered document, it has no application to the intrinsic fact and situation involved in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Shaji P.Chaly, J.

This appeal is preferred by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.9.2010 in W.P.(C) No.37150/2009, filed by the first respondent, wherein respondents 2 & 3 herein are respondents 1 & 2 respectively. The judgment of the learned Single Judge ordered thus:

“22. The conclusions emerging from the above discussion may be summed up as follows: (i) The sub-registrar is legally obliged to reject and refuse to register a deed of cancellation of a sale unilaterally executed without the knowledge and consent of the other parties to the sale deed and without complying with Section 32A of the Registration Act, 1908. (ii) All sub-registrars of the State shall see that a deed of cancellation of sale is registered only if executed with mutual consent of all parties to the sale, complying with the provisions of the Act and Rules including Section 32A of the Registration Act. 23.

23. In the result, these two writ petitions are allowed and the registration of the deed of cancellation dated 1-8-2009 registered as document no. 2830/2009 of Uliyil Sub Registrar’s Office produced as Ext. P3 in W.P. (C) No. 34367/2009 and the registration of the deed of cancellation dated 24-11-2009 registered as document no. 2099/2009 of Anchalummood Sub Registrar’s Office produced as Ext. P2 in W.P. (C) No. 37150/2009 are hereby quashed. The respective sub-registrar shall cancel, strike off and remove the said deeds from the registers maintained by them in respect of the respective properties and the same shall not be included in the encumbrance certificates to be issued in respect of those properties. For completing the formalities, the 4th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 34367/2009 and the 3rd respondent in W.P. (C) No. 37150/2009 shall produce the cancellation deeds executed by them before the respective sub-registrar for cancelling the registration within two weeks from receipt of a communication from the sub-registrar directing production, which the sub-registrar shall issue within two weeks. However, the sub registrar shall not wait for such production for making appropriate changes in his register as directed above.

Before parting with the case, I suggest that the Government of Kerala would do well to introduce appropriate amendment to either the Act or the Rules, in line with Rule 26(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules referred to above, (see paragraph 19 supra) to give a statutory framework to the findings in this judgment. To enable the Government to consider the same, the Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Registration Department and the Inspector General of Registration, of the Government of Kerala. I sincerely hope that my above suggestion will not meet with the same fate, namely, discard to the waste bin, as my suggestion in Retnavally V Ambalapadu S.C.B. Ltd., 2005 (3) KLT 320, wherein also a suggestion was made to the Government in respect of notification of commencement of Section 4A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in the State of Kerala, which would have hugely benefitted the entire workforce in Kerala covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, without any corresponding financial burden on either the employers or the Government. In the meanwhile, the Inspector General of registration shall circulate a copy of this judgment with appropriate directions in accordance with this judgment, to all sub-registrars of the State who shall implement the directions contained herein.”

2. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed along with the connected writ petition viz., W.P.(C) No.34367/2009. The subject issue relates to unilateral cancellation of Ext.P1 sale deed No.2209/08 dated 28.10.2008 by registration of cancellation deed No.2099/09 dated 24.11.2009 of SRO, Anchalummood on the ground that, the writ petitioner has not paid the sale consideration and the property has not been given possession of to the petitioner. Learned Single Judge