JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he and his other family members are in ownership of about 90 cents of land, along with a house, with respect to which a suit for partition – namely O.S.No.146/2012 before the Munsiff's Court, Pattambi – had been filed. He says that the suit was decreed, which is evident from Ext.P1 and that an appeal had been filed by him and certain other defendants therein, which has been numbered as A.S.No.103/2014 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam.

2. The petitioner says that the parties have now entered into a compromise, as per which, some of them have agreed to execute a relinquishment deed in his favour, but that when he approached the 4th respondent - Sub Registrar, for registration of the same, it has been declined saying that a “Thandaper” account has to be first assigned in his favour. He says that he, therefore, approached the Village Officer through an application, but that this has been now rejected through Ext.P3 by the said Authority, merely saying that a “Thandaper” account can be assigned only subject to the appeal and in no other manner.

3. The petitioner contends that Ext.P3 is improper and that, in any event of the matter, the 4th respondent – Sub Registrar could not have refused to register the Relinquishment Deed in his favour, solely for in the absence of a “Thandaper” account, since this is not a mandatory requirement.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Jayaram – learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mable.C.Kurian – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

5. Smt.Mable.C.Kurian submitted that petitioner cannot impel any grievance against Ext.P3 because the Village Officer has, in fact, acceded to his request and agreed to assign him a “Thandaper” account, subject to the appeal pending before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. She submitted that, therefore, if the petitioner is agreeable, then the Village Officer will issue such an account, so that the Relinquishment Deed can then be presented before the 4th respondent – Sub Registrar for its registration.

6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, prima facie, it appears that there are litigations pending with respect to the property in question. The petitioner's specific case is that the parties in the said litigation have now compromised and that some of them are agreeable to execute a Relinquishment Deed in his favour. However, since the petitioner concedes that his appeal, namely A.S.No.103/2014, is pending before the Sub Court, Ottappalam, I am certain that he must approach the said Court and file the necessary compromise, leading to drafting of the Relinquishment Deed, thus finally having it registered.

7. Needless to say, once a compromise is presented before the Sub Court, Ottappalam, said Court can certainly grant liberty to the parties to execute apposite Relinquishment Deed, which thereupon will have to be acceded to for registration by the 4th respondent, with or without a “Thandaper” account being assigned in favour of the petitioner.

8. That said, since Ext.P3 says that “Thandaper” account can be assigned in favour of the petitioner, subject to the final result in the appeal, I am of the view that petitioner must accept the same and seek the said account to be finalised after registration of the Relinquishment Deed is completed.

9. Resultantly, I allow liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sub Court, Ottappalam, before which A.S.No.103/2014 is pending and present the compromise between the parties, leading to drafting and presentation of the Relinquishment Deed before the 4th respondent – Sub Registrar. The petitioner will also be at liberty to move the 3rd respondent – Village Officer for a “Thandaper” account in terms of Ext.P3; and after the Relinquishment Deed is registered by the Sub Registrar – either on the strength of the said thandaper account or without it – he will be at liberty to move the Village Officer again and obtain a final “Thandaper” account in his favour based on the said deed.

This wri