Point of Law: While the proviso to Section 32A deals with document relating to the transfer of ownership of immovable property, the principal Section 32A deals with any document other than document relating to the transfer of ownership of immovable property provided in the proviso and provides that every person presenting any document at the proper registration

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners say that they are members of ‘Chethikkattil family’ in Chazhoor village of Thrissur District. An association of members of the family by name ‘Chethikkattil Kudumbakshema Sabha’ (Association, for short) was functioning for the past several years and in the general body meeting of the Association convened on 31.1.2010, it was decided to convert the Association into a Trust by name ‘Chethikkattil Family Welfare Charitable Trust’. The objectives of the Trust, include the upkeep of the Chethikkatt Bhuvaneswari Devi Temple and the conduct of its annual festivals and also to provide financial aid and assistance to the weaker members of the family who are in need. Accordingly, Ext. P1 trust deed with capital of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) was registered by Sri. Thilakan C.C, the then President of the Association as registered deed No. 190/IV/2010 of the Sub Registrar Office, Anthikkad, Thrissur District.

2. A few months thereafter, Sri. Thilakan C.C., the executant of Ext. P1 trust deed presented for registration a cancellation deed before the Sub Registrar Office, Vadakkumkara, Thrissur District for cancelling Ext. P1 trust deed. Accordingly, Ext. P2 deed No.194/IV/2011 dated 23.8.2011 was registered by the Sub Registrar, Vadakkumkara cancelling Ext. P1 trust deed. The reason for revoking Ext. P1 trust deed stated in Ext.P2 is that the general body of the Association did not ratify the registration of Ext. P1 trust deed and the general body resolved to cancel the trust deed.

3. According to the petitioners, the trust deed was registered with the Sub Registrar Office, Anthikkad, but, the cancellation deed was registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Vadakkumkara, 15 Km away from Anthikkad where the trust property is situated and the trust deed was originally registered. Though one of the petitioners by application dated 22.08.2011 objected to the registration of the revocation deed before the Sub Registrar, Anthikkad, the said respondent as per Ext. P3 letter dated 25.08.2011 rejected the application by directing the said petitioner to approach the Court to resolve his grievances. According to the petitioners, registration of Ext. P2 cancellation deed in a Sub Registrar Office, other than the one where Ext.P1 was registered, is not legally sustainable. The petitioners also contend that since the trust deed was registered as per the resolution of the general body of the Association, no ratification of the trust deed by the general body of the Association is required and the same was only a ruse to get the trust deed revoked.

4. Relying on the decision of this Court in Noble John v. State of Kerala and Others [2010 (3) KHC 879 : 2010 (3) KLT 941 : ILR 2010 (3) Ker. 979], the petitioners seek to quash Ext.P2 cancellation deed and for directing the Sub Registrar, Vadakkumkara to cancel, strike off, and remove Ext. P2 deed from the register maintained by him.

5. A Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that as per Section 29(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, the executants or claimant of documents other than those covered by Section 28 of the said Act, are at liberty to present such documents either at the Sub Registrar Office of the Sub District where the document was executed or at any other Sub Registrar Office in the State where they desire to register the document and therefore there is nothing unusual about the registration of Ext. P2 document at Sub Registrar Office, Vadakkumkara. After the registration of Ext. P2, a memorandum required under Rule 186 of the Registration Rules (Kerala), 1958 has been sent to the Sub Registrar Office, Anthikkad by the Sub Registrar, Vadakkumkara. Ext.P2 was registered strictly adhering to the Registration Act and Rules. It is further stated that, as per Rule 67 of the Registration Rules (Kerala), 1958, enquiring about the legal validity of a document presented for registration does not form the part of the duty of a Registering Officer. A R