IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of immovable property and standing timber, as well as the requirement of registration for documents creating rights or interest in immovable property.

JUDGMENT :

Ext.P7 order dismissing an application under Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the C.P.C.') is under challenge in this Original Petition.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant, and the respondents are the plaintiff and the second defendant respectively, in O.S. No.36/2017 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Pala (for short 'the trial court').

3. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the tapping of rubber trees standing in the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, an agreement dated 06.01.2015 was executed between him on one part and the first defendant through the second defendant as power of attorney holder on the other part, permitting him to tap the rubber trees situated in the plaint schedule property belonging to the first defendant and his wife. The agreement was produced along with the plaint. The first defendant entered appearance and disputed the execution of the agreement. It is contended that the agreement is a concocted one made by the plaintiff in collusion with the second defendant.

4. The first defendant filed Ex.P4 application (I.A. No.1094/2018) at the trial court, invoking Order 13 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. to reject the agreement on the ground that it is a compulsorily registrable document and hence cannot be admitted into evidence. The trial court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application as per Ext.P7 order. It is challenging the said order; this Original Petition has been preferred.

5. During the pendency of this Original Petition, the plaintiff/first respondent died, and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 7.

6. I have heard Sri. Rajeev V. Kurup, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. N. Rajesh the learned counsel for additional respondents 3 to 7.

7. The plaintiff claims the right to tap 750 yielding rubber trees situated in the plaint schedule property belonging to the first defendant and his wife based on the unregistered agreement dated 06.01.2015. As per the agreement, the plaintiff was given the right to tap the rubber trees for 15 years for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh only).

8. The first defendant sought to reject the agreement relying on Section 17(1)(d) and Section 49 of the Kerala Registration Act. Section 17 of the Act deals with the documents of which registration is compulsory and Section 49 deals with the effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. Section 17(1)(c) says that non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt of payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any right, title or interest in immovable property is a compulsorily registrable document. Section 49(c) provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power unless it has been registered. Even though the contention of the first defendant was based on Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act, the trial court adverted to Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act and found that the document is only a license, not a lease. It was further found that the agreement in question did not create any interest over immovable property and hence it is not compulsorily registrable.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the agreement would show that it creates interest or right over the immovable property on receipt of consideration and hence, it requires registration. Reliance was placed on Shantabai v. State of Bombay and Others [AIR 1958 SC 532 (Y 45 C 79)], Joseph v. Joseph Annamma (1979 KLT 322), Velayudhan Padmanabhan v. Thyagarajan [2011 (3) KLT 867], Santhakumari v. Raghavan Unni and Another (2014 KHC 715) and Pathumuthumma v. Khaja Moideen [2019 (3) KLT 265]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents