JUDGMENT

The essential issue impelled by the petitioner in this case is as to how Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds could have been accepted and registered by the 2nd respondent - Sub Registrar, when the executants of the said documents had, themselves, earlier presented and registered Exts.P4 and P5 Release Deeds with respect to the same in his favour.

2. Sri. Sujuai Sathyan .K - learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the afore action of the 2nd respondent - Sub Registrar is grossly in violation of the affirmative declarations made by this Court in Santhosh Antonio Netto v. Joshy Thomas –(2020(3) KHC 278); reiteratingly argued that Exts.P4 and P5 Release Deeds had earlier been executed by the party respondents in favour of his clients; consequent to which, the property became vested in them and therefore, that the subsequent cancellation Deeds are non-est. He, thus prayed that Exts.P6 and P7 Deeds be declared to be null and void by this Court, so that his client can deal with the property in question, on the strength of Exts.P4 and P5 Release Deeds, without an impediment in future.

3. In response, Sri.V.A.Vinod – learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, conceded that, going by the declarations in Santhosh Antonio Netto (Supra), the registration of Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds could not have been made. He submitted that, however, there were certain errors in the afore mentioned Release Deeds, which necessitated the registration of the Cancellation Deeds and that this would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner because, what was released to him through Exts.P4 and P5 was much more in excess than what was entitled to him. He, therefore, prayed that Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds be not interdicted by this Court.

4. Smt.K.Amminikutty – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the Sub Registrar had accepted and registered Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds after verifying all essential and imperative qualifications and requirements, as per the provisions of the Registration Act. She, however, added that, the 2nd respondent – Registrar was not aware that the said Deeds were presented to cancel the earlier Release Deeds and submitted that the said Authority will abide by any directions to be issued by this Court.

5. When I evaluate the afore rival contentions, it is without any contest that, through Exts.P4 and P5 Release Deeds, certain extents of property had been released in favour of the petitioner and that the said documents had been, admittedly, registered. Obviously, therefore, Sri.Sujai Sathyan K. is absolutely right in contending that the property in question became vested with his client and therefore, that any subsequent document dealing with the same could have been registered only with his client's knowledge and concurrence, and not otherwise. In fact, this is the specific declaration made by this Court in Santhosh Antonio Netto v. Joshy Thomas -2020(3) KHC 278; and am of the view that, since the 2nd respondent – Sub-Registrar has acted in disregard of the same, Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds, cannot stand scrutiny in law.

6. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as afore, Sri. Vinod - learned counsel for the party respondents submitted that if this Court is inclined to declare Ext.P6 and P7 Deeds as null and void, then liberty may be reserved to his clients to approach the competent Civil Court, for cancellation of Ext.P4 and P5 Release Deeds.

7. There is no doubt that even if Exts.P6 and P7 are declared by this Court to be illegal or non-est, and remedies of the party respondents under the Civil law against Exts. P4 and P5 would remain uninterdicted and that they would be at liberty to invoke and pursue them appropriately, without being trammelled by any of the observations in this judgment.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and declare Exts.P6 and P7 Cancellation Deeds to be null and void in law; and consequently set them aside, with liberty being reserved to t