The subject matter of both these Writ Petitions is similar and both seek to quash Ext.P3 memos issued by the 4 th 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 1 st 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 Coun