Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 524
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
Minor Anna Francies and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Sub Registrar and ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.6577 OF 2020(V)
Decided On : 07-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.T.N.Manoj, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri K.P Harish, Senior Government Pleader
IMPORTANT POINTS
The registration of a document by the registration authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 merely records the transaction between the transferor and the transferee in the jurisdiction of the said registering authority. It is apparent from the rules that the Registering authority under Act may venture to refuse registration if the circumstances which have been detailed in Rule 67 or Rule 191 strikes his notice.
Headnote:
Registration Rules (Kerala)- Rule 191 ;; The Registration Act, 1908- Section 69 (2) –Refusal of registration by the registrar- Rules enabling the registering authority to register a document presented before him is not exhaustive, the registering officer cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the validity or legal sustainability of a document.
Statement of facts:
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions the refusal of the Sub Registrar acting under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the rules framed thereunder to register a receipt presented for registration.
Finding of the court:
The registrar has exceeded in his powers by interpreting the terms of the Will and in concluding that the receipt issued by the petitioners are not liable to be registered more so because none of the petitioners, to whom money was ordered to be paid, have raised any objection on any of the grounds made out under the statutory provisions-No justification on the part of the 1st respondent in refusing registration when Exhibit P2 receipt was presented before him.
Result: Writ Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions the refusal of the Sub Registrar acting under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (‘the Act’ for short), and the rules framed thereunder to register a receipt presented for registration.
2. Late Maleyekkal Ollukkaran Varghese Antony had two sons and a daughter, they being Francis, Victor, and Sherly. During his lifetime, Varghese executed a will bequeathing an item of property owned by him and having an extent of 23 cents comprised in Survey No.243/1 of the Irinjalakuda Village together with the building situated therein in favor of his son Victor. The petitioners herein are the minor children of Francis and they are represented in this petition by their father and guardian, Sri. Francis.
3. As per the stipulations in the Will, Victor was required to pay a sum of Rs. 14 Lakhs to Francis, 5 Lakhs to Shirley, One lakh each to the petitioners, and one lakh each to his own minor children. However, it was expressly stipulated in the Will that if any of the children of Sri. Francis does not attain the majority even after 10 years of the passing away of the testator, Victor should pay the amount to the respective beneficiary after the attainment of the majority and obtain receipts. Any delay in effecting the payment was to attract interest at the rate of 12 % and a charge was also created over the property to the extent of the amounts directed to be paid under the Will.
4. The petitioners contend that Varghese passed away and the Will has come into effect. Sri. Victor, in tune with the stipulations in the Will, has deposited the amount in the account maintained by the petitioners at the Service Cooperative Bank, Irinjalakkuda, and acknowledging the same, the father of the petitioners, for and on their behalf, as their guardian, has issued Exhibit P2 receipt. Victor remitted the requisite fees with the 1st respondent and requested that the deed be registered. However, the 1st respondent has refused to register the receipt on the ground that the same is premature, as the Will stipulates payment only after the petitioners attain majority and not before.
5. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners are before this court seeking the following reliefs.
1. Appropriate writ order or direction to declare that Exhibit P2 receipt is capable of being registered under the provisions of the Registration act, by the 1st respondent without waiting till the petitioners to attain majority.
2. Appropriate writ of mandamus, order or any other appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to register Exhibit P2 under the provisions of the Registration Act.
6. The 1st respondent has filed a statement. In para 4 it is stated thus:
“4. It is true that on 31.01.2020 Francis Chethalan has presented Exhibit P2 receipt before this respondent for and on behalf of his three minor children namely Anna Francis, Antony Francis and Angel Francis. The registration of Exhibit P2 receipt was objected by this respondent for the reason that a stipulation has been written at Page No.4 of Exhibit P1 registered Will No.100/III/2011 of S.R.O Kallettinkara executed by Grandfather of the minors-Late Antony that the beneficiary of the will i.e., the uncle of the minor namely Maleyakkal Ollukaran Victor has to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each to all three minors and to receive the receipt for the said amount only when the minors attaining majority and property described in Exhibit P1 Will was made charge for the fulfillment of this condition. In the Exhibit P1 Will it is specifically stated that only at the time of attainment of majority and not below the attainment of the majority the amount is to be passed to the majors. The very recitals of Exhibit P1 Will it is crystal clear that the amount should reach in the hands of the children after attainment of majority and not to the others and the receipt of amount will have to given by them for acknowledgment of the same to the beneficiary. It is stated in
