SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J.
Sulochana – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Secretary, Taxes Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 3752 OF 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dinesh Mathew J.Muricken, K.A.Abhilash, Vinod S. Pillai, Mohammed Thayib N.M., Nayana Varghese, Ria Varghese, Ahammad Sachin K., Jerry Peter
For the Respondent: Ajith Viswanathan, Government Pleader

IMPORTANT POINT
A prisoner's right to execute a document and the registration process as per the Registration Act 1908.

Headnote:

Registration Act 1908 - Prisoner's right to execute document - Section 38(2) - Summary: The court addressed the issue of a prisoner's right to execute a document and the registration process as per Sections 30 and 38 of the Act 1908. It held that a prisoner is exempted from appearing at the registration office and the registering officer is duty-bound to go to the jail to examine the prisoner or issue a commission for examination. The court directed the jail superintendent to request the registrar's presence for the execution and registration of the document.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought permission for her husband, a prisoner, to execute a relinquishment deed in jail, but the jail superintendent refused without a court order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's husband, as a prisoner, was exempted from appearing at the registration office and directed the jail superintendent to request the registrar's presence for the execution and registration of the document.

Issues: Prisoner's right to execute document, refusal by jail superintendent, compliance with Registration Act 1908

Ratio Decidendi: A prisoner is exempted from appearing at the registration office, and the registering officer is duty-bound to go to the jail to examine the prisoner or issue a commission for examination.

Final Decision: The court directed the jail superintendent to request the registrar's presence for the execution and registration of the document as per the Act 1908.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to allow Sudheesh (Prisoner No.5578 at Viyyur Central Jail) to execute Exhibit P3 document in the presence of the 4th respondent and endorsing the same in Exhibit P3 document with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to register Exhibit P3 document after its execution by Sudheesh as per Section 38(2) of the Registration Act 1908 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1908).

2. Petitioner is the wife of one Sudheesh who is undergoing sentence in SC No.253/2015 on the file of the Special Judge, Thrissur, as prisoner No.5578 at Viyyur Central Jail. The petitioner along with her husband Sudheesh is having 1.82 ares of property comprised in Survey No.460/4-3 of Nedumpura Village, Talappilly Taluk, Thrissur District, and a house therein obtained as per Ext.P2 document registered at Sub Registrar Office, Wadakkanchery.

3. Petitioner's husband Sudheesh intends to relinquish his share in the abovementioned property in favour of the petitioner by executing a relinquishment deed to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of a housing scheme proclaimed by the Government. Thereupon, the petitioner had prepared Ext.P3 relinquishment deed by engrossing the same in the stamp paper for getting it executed by Sudheesh (Prisoner No.5578 of Viyyur Central Jail). Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent, the Superintendent of Jail, who is to permit Sudheesh to execute Exhibit P3 document, but the said respondent refused the request stating that he could do so only as per an order of this Court. Petitioner relying on Chapter 56 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 submits that the stand taken by the 4th respondent is absolutely arbitrary and unjust inasmuch as ample power has been given to the 4th respondent to grant permission for visitorial rights including for making arrangement for management of the property of the prisoners. Petitioner relies on Section 38 of the Act, 1908 and submits that a prisoner is exempted from appearing in person at the registration office for registration of a document.

4. A detailed statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is admitted that going by Section 38 (1) of the Act, 1908 a person in jail under civil or criminal process is exempted from personal appearance before the registering officer for registering a document which is executed by them and as per Section 38(2) of the Act 1908, the Sub Registrar is vested with ample power to go to the jail in which the executant is confined and examine him or issue a commission for his examination for the purpose of registration. It is further stated that the petitioner's husband is undergoing imprisonment in Viyyur Central Jail, Thrissur, and the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent is confined only to Talappilly Taluk and Viyyur Central Jail is situated in Viyyur Village which falls within the jurisdiction of the amalgamated Sub Registrar Office, Thrissur. The 3rd respondent relying on Section 30(1) of the Act 1908 submits that any Registrar may in his discretion receive and register any document which might be registered by any Sub Registrar subordinate to him. It is further stated that once sanction of the 4th respondent is obtained, the amalgamated Sub Registrar, Thrissur who can exercise the authority of the District Registrar can attend the jail and complete the registration process. It is further stated that the presence of the executant before the Registrar shall be in accordance with law and subject to the sanction by the 4th respondent Jail Superintendent.

5. A statement has also been filed by the 4th respondent wherein it is stated that a deed was produced before the jail authorities to obtain the signature of the prisoner in the absence of the registering officer. The prisoner was not willing to sign the document. Later, Shri. Sudheesh, the prisoner has submitted Ext R4(a) letter expressing his intention t

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top