The Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register a document if the petitioner's title to the property is indubitable from Ext.P1, which recorded him as being the “Pattadar”, consequent to the assignment of a “Thandaper Account” in his name.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P4 memo issued by the first respondent - Sub Registrar refusing to register the document presented by him with respect to his property, for the reason that no prior title document showing his ownership over the same has been produced.

2. The petitioner says that his title of the property is indubitable from Ext.P1, which records him as being the “Pattadar”, consequent to the assignment of a “Thandaper Account” in his name and therefore, that the Sub Registrar could not have gone on a roving enquiry on his title over the property in question. The petitioner relies on the judgments of this Court in Eshaque v. Sub Registrar [2002 (1) KLT 330] and Sumathi and another v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (5) KHC 586] in substantiation. He thus prays that Ext.P4 be set aside and the Sub Registrar be directed to register Ext.P2 without any further delay.

3. The afore submissions of Sri.Baby Mathew - learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Mable C.Kurian, saying that the Sub Registrar has only verified whether the petitioner has any title with respect to the property before the conveyance document is registered. She added that the Sub Registrar is acting within his jurisdiction under the Registration Act and Rules and therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. In reply, Sri.Baby Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that his client has no title document or “Patta” with respect to the property in question, but that his ownership and possession of it cannot be now contested by the Sub Registrar since this is luculent from Ext.P1, which shows the Thandaper Account and defines him as a Pattadar.

5. I must say that I find some force in the submissions of Sri.Baby Mathew because, when Ext.P1 recognises the petitioner as a Pattadar having been assigned Thandaper Account, thus being allowed to remit land tax on the property - one cannot fathom why the Sub Registrar should ask him to produce title document or “Patta” in substantiation of title, because there is no dispute to the same from any quarters, at least, at this time.

6. In the afore circumstances, I am certain that the Sub Registrar must register the document, however, care should also be taken to indemnify the said Authority, if any claim is to arise against the property in future.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and direct the Sub Registrar to register Ext.P2, based on Ext.P1, at the risk and consequences of the petitioner; making it reiteratingly clear that if any claims should be brought on the property in future by any person, the said Authority will stand fully indemnified and the petitioner will alone be responsible for all the consequences thereof.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29930/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT DATED

20/03/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF UNREGISTERED SETTLEMENT DEED

22/10/2021 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY IN SLIP DATED

08/11/2021 ISSUED FROM SUB TREASURY, ALATHUR.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUB REGISTRAR.