IMPORTANT POINT
The Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration of a sale deed based on legal interpretations of ownership and rights that exceed their jurisdiction, as registration does not confer title but merely acknowledges the document.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Jayachandran, J.)

Dated, this the 25th day of July, 2024 The subject matter of both these Writ Petitions is similar and both seek to quash Ext.P3 memos issued by the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar refusing to register sale deeds, produced as Ext.P2 in both the Writ Petitions.

2. Registration is refused vide Ext.P3 memo, on the premise that the petitioner company, the vendor in Ext.P2 sale deeds, has only possessory rights over the property sought to be transferred. The 1st petitioner company has neither the ownership, nor the jenmom rights over that property. Ext.P3 - after referring to various aspects as to whether the petitioner company can be treated as a 'tenant' and whether the petitioner could prescribe its title by adverse possession etc - ultimately finds that the Managing Director representing the petitioner company has no right to transfer the ownership rights and refused registration, accordingly.

3. Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.P.B.Subramanyan on behalf of the petitioners; Sri.M.H.Hanil Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) on behalf of respondents 1 to 5; and Sri.Santheep Ankarath on behalf of additional respondent no.6. Perused the records.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aspects, which are seen referred to in Ext.P3 memo, as regards the competence of the 1st petitioner company to convey the ownership rights etc., are not matters, over which, the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar can probe and issue directions. Extraneous matters, beyond the competence and jurisdiction, have been considered to refuse the registration of sale deeds, marked as Ext.P2 in the Writ Petitions. Ext.P3 memo, therefore, cannot stand the test of law and hence, liable to be set aside, is the submission. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that, part of the large extent property which belonged to the petitioner company was earlier presented for registration, in which occasion also, a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Revenue Authorities clarifying, whether the land in question is exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, was insisted upon. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No.18155/2021 directed registration of the document and the consequent transfer of registry, without insisting for the N.O.C. Learned Senior Counsel would point out that Exts.P6 to P9 were documents of a similar nature, which were registered without any demur on the question of title. Therefore, the present objection vide Ext.P3 memos are illegal and unsustainable, is the final submission.

5. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent, who was impleaded vide orders in I.A.No.1/2024, would submit that the 6th respondent is the Receiver appointed for managing the estate of Nilambur Kovilakam in the suit, O.S.No.22/1961 of the Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner company has no title over the property sought to be conveyed. Ext.P4 document, under which, the 1st petitioner claims title would clearly indicate that the ownership of Nilambur estate is presently under the management of the 6th respondent. Exts.P6 to P9 documents were executed misrepresenting the facts and misleading this Court, as well as, the office of the Sub Registrar. Inasmuch as the 1st Petitioner has no right to execute Ext.P2 documents, the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar is well within his limits in refusing registration thereof. As regards the right of the Registrar to refuse registration, learned counsel would rely upon the following judgments of this Court:

i) Noble John v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 941].

ii) Divakaran v. State of Kerala and Others [2016 (5) KHC 49].

iii) Santhosh Antonio S.Netto v. Joshy Thomas and Others [2020 (3) KHC 278 (DB)].

6. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit in both the Writ Petitions, contending inter alia that, Nilambur Kovilakam is the owner of the property sought to be transferred, which was leased out to the 1st