JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The writ appeals are filed by the writ petitioners and the respondents in the writ petition challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 24.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 4302 of 2020. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition was mainly for quashing Ext. P6 order dated 11.12.2019, which read thus:

1. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P6 and quash the original of the same.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take steps to register Ext. P4 cancellation deed expeditiously.

3. To declare that the stamp duty payable for executing a registration deed is only Rs.500/- as provided under Article 15 of Kerala Stamp Act.

2. The learned single Judge, after taking into account the facts and circumstances and the law involved, has entered into the following observations, findings and conclusions:

4. The partition deed involves severance of interest in the property. If there is a mistake on facts, this deed become void or voidable at the option of the executants. Appreciation of these facts can be done only by a civil court. The Registering Authority cannot appreciate and declare that a partition deed can be cancelled. As far as the Registrar is concerned competency of the parties alone need to be considered. When there is a partition deed executed by the parties concerned, the Registrar has to assume that there is a severance of interest. Whether the parties have acted upon the partition deed or not is a matter of appreciation of evidence. That cannot be done by the Registrar. If the Sub Registrar allows cancellation deed to be registered, it pre-suppose that the partition deed was not acted upon. That is not within the power of the Registrar.

5. If the cancellation deed is allowed to be registered it would result a serious repercussion on the rights and interest of the parties. That is the reason, law contemplates an adjudication by the civil court to declare it is void or voidable by invoking under Section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 31 (1)reads thus:-

“Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order to be delivered up and cancelled.”

6. A proper remedy in such circumstances is to approach civil court to declare the cancellation deed is void or voidable and thereafter, forward the same to the Registering Authority to register as a follow up such procedure, contemplated under Section 31 (2) of the Specific Relief Act.

7. The demand made in Ext.P6 is unsustainable. It no way would attract fees applicable for conveyance. The question is whether a cancellation deed can be registered or not without order of the civil court. Instead of answering the same, an attempt is being made to impound on the documents and levy charges applicable for conveyance. Therefore, the demand made in Ext.P6 is set aside.

8. In view of the fact that all the parties have agreed to cancel the deed, the civil court shall dispose the civil suit expeditiously as possible, in the event such suit is filed by the petitioners, within a period of six months.”

It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, rival parties have preferred these appeals.

3. The paramount contention advanced by the writ petitioners/appellants is that there is no bar for cancelling the document on the basis of the consensus arrived at between the parties to the document. Further, according to the writ petitioners, even the respondents do not have such a case and their only dispute is regarding the quantum of stamp duty payable. That apart, it was submitted that Ext. P4 cancellation deed was presented when the Village Officer, Mundoor Village, Palakkad, issued Ext. P2 communication dated 24.08.2019 when