The Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration based on ownership disputes or legal interpretations beyond his jurisdiction; refusal must be based on clear incompetence evident from the documents.

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 Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aspects, which are seen referred to in Ext.P3 memo, as regards the competence of the 1 st petitioner company to convey the ownership rights etc., are not matters, over which, the 4 th 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 6 th respondent, who was impleaded vide orders in I.A.No.1/2024, would submit that the 6 th 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 1 st petitioner company has no title over the property sought to be conveyed.

Ext.P4 document, under which, the 1 st petitioner claims title would clearly indicate that the ownership of Nilambur estate is presently under the management of the 6 th 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 1 st Petitioner has no right to execute Ext.P2 documents, the 4 th 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 4 th 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 1 st petitioner company for a period of 12 years, which period