Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50598
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 26829 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1
ABOOBACKER
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O MOIDEEN, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS THEKKINETH HOUSE,
KONJASSERY.P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683547.
2
SELMA MOIDEEN,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O MOIDEEN, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS POONCHERIYIL HOUSE, PAYIPRA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PEZHAKAPILLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.
3
SINI SHAHUL,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS CHERAKAKUDI HOUSE,
VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALLAPRA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683556.
BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
REGISTRATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.
2
PERUMBAVOOR SUB REGISTRY,
PERUMBAVOOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-685542.
3
SHEREEFA MANZIL,
AGED 76 YEARS
W/O.AZEEZ, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS CHERUKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH , PONJASSERY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683547.
4
SAJITH SUBAIR,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.SUBAIR, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS CHERAKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PONJASSERRY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683547.
WP(C) NO. 26829 OF 2021
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26829 OF 2021
3
Registration of documents subject to attachment is permissible if the parties undertake to honour the attachment.
Headnote:
REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS - ATTACHMENT - SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT - Petitioners purchased properties from the 3rd respondent, but when they presented the Sale Deeds for registration, it was denied by the 2nd respondent – Sub Registrar, saying that there is an order of attachment on them, at the instance of the 4th respondent, who is the daughter-in-law of the 3rd respondent. Petitioners submitted that even if there is an attachment over the properties, it will not stop the registration of the Sale Deeds, since the transfer of the same will be subject to the said attachment and that they undertake to honour the same, if it becomes so warranted in future.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners purchased certain properties from the 3rd respondent, but when they presented the Sale Deeds for registration, it was denied by the 2nd respondent – Sub Registrar, saying that there is an order of attachment on them, at the instance of the 4th respondent, who is the daughter-in-law of the 3rd respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the 2nd respondent to register the Sale Deeds in favour of the petitioners, which shall be done, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two weeks from the date on which they are presented before him for such purpose.
Issues: Whether the registration of the Sale Deeds can be denied due to an order of attachment on the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registration of the Sale Deeds can be allowed subject to the attachment, so that there will be no prejudice to the 4th respondent either.
Final Decision: The court ordered the 2nd respondent to register the Sale Deeds in favour of the petitioners, subject to the attachment.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners say that, they purchased certain properties from the 3rd respondent, but that when they presented Exts.P1 to P3 Sale Deeds for registration, it was denied to be done by the 2nd respondent – Sub Registrar, saying that there is an order of attachment on them, at the instance of the 4th respondent, who is the daughter-in-law of the 3rd respondent.
2. Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that even if there is an attachment over the properties, as now stated by the Sub Registrar, it will not stop the said Authority from registering Exts.P1 to P3, since transfer of the same will be subject to the said attachment and that his clients undertake to honour the same, if it becomes so warranted in future.
3. In other words, what Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel, argued was that the documents in question be allowed to be registered subject to the attachment, so that there will be no prejudice to the 4th respondent either. He explained that he is making this submission because his clients have already parted with large amounts of money to the 3rd respondent and therefore, that if they are now refused registration of the documents, they would be put to irreparable prejudice, particularly, because the amount covered by the attachment is only about Rs.35 lakhs or thereabout. 4. I notice from the files that even though service has been completed on respondents 3 and 4, they have chosen not to appear before this Court in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations of the petitioner and that they do not stand in the way of reliefs being granted to them as prayed for.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader –
Smt.Amminikutty, submitted that petitioners cannot have any cause against the 2nd respondent because he has acted correctly and validly, because he noticed an order of attachment over the properties obtained by the 4th respondent. She submitted that, therefore, unless this Court directs the 2nd respondent to register the documents, it cannot be done on account of the afore fact.
6. When I evaulate the afore submissions and in particular the fact that 4th respondent has kept away from this Court, it is evident that, as far as she is concerned, she only requires her claim before the Family Court to be protected.
7. Since Sri.Sreekumar Chelur, learned counsel for the petitioners, says that his clients are willing to accept the properties subject to the attachment, I do not see any reason why they should be denied the benefit of Exts.P1 to P3 documents being registered.
Resultantly, recording the undertaking of Sri.Sreekumar Chelur as afore, I order this writ petition and direct the 2nd respondent to register Exts.P1 to P3 documents in favour of the petitioners, which shall be done, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two weeks from the date on which they are presented before him for such purpose.
As far as the 4th respondent is concerned, I make it clear that her claim will not be put to any prejudice even after Exts.P1 to P3 documents are registered and that the properties in question and the petitioners, along with the 3rd respondent, will continue to be responsible for the claim made by her before the competent Court.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26829/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNREGISTERED SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 11.10.21.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNREGISTERED SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 11.10.21.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNREGISTERED SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF THE THIRD PETITIONER DATED 11.10.21.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERT OWNED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT IN THE NAME OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE VENGOLA VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 16.7.20.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE O
