JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that when she presented Ext.P3 Settlement Deed before the second respondent - Sub Registrar for registration, he refused to do so, issuing Ext.P5 saying that unless the said document is supported by all her prior title Deeds, her request cannot be acceded to.

2. The petitioner asserts that the afore stand of the Sub Registrar is contrary to the declarations of law in Anna Francies v. Sub Registrar [2020 (5) KLT 257], which has declared the law unambiguously that the Sub Registrar does not have any power to cause an enquiry into the validity of a document of the property. He argued that since Ext.P3 clearly shows the derivation of title under which his client has obtained the property, there was no requirement for the Sub Registrar to have sought for an enquiry into the genuineness of the same and thus prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside.

3. The afore submissions of Sri.Leo Lukose, learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Smt.Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader, arguing that the Sub Registrar is not causing any enquiry into the title of the petitioner, but has only asked her to show that she has some right over the property which she seeks to settle through Ext.P3. She contended that there is nothing wrong in Ext.P5 and therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the Sub Registrar has a duty to verify regarding the contents of the document, but cannot enter into a roving enquiry relating to the veracity or genuineness of the same. In other words, even though the said Authority is obliged in law to verify whether the necessary covenants and statements are contained in the document as per law, he cannot cause a comprehensive enquiry into the genuineness of the narration of derivation of title going by Anna Francies (supra).

5. In such perspective, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5; however, leaving full liberty to the second respondent – Sub Registrar, to verify the document presented before him and to ensure that all necessary covenants and statements are contained therein as per law, but without entering into a roving enquiry into the genuineness of the prior title documents.

6. At this time, Smt.Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader, intervened to say that the Sub Registrar is certainly in a position to make some enquiry regarding the title of the petitioner and that, in Ext.P3, this is conspicuously absent. She relied on the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Divakaran v. State of Kerala and others [2016 (5)

KHC 49] in support.

7. However, this contention was rebutted by Sri.Leo Lukose, contending that, even going by the materials on record, the transfer of Registry of the property in question has already been effected in favour of his client by the Tahsildar under the provisions of Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules and therefore, that the second respondent cannot maintain that she has no title. He submitted that once the transfer of Registry had been so effected, the second respondent cannot travel beyond it to say that the petitioner has no title and that she must produce other title deeds to prove the same.

8. The rival positions of the parties being so recorded, there can be little doubt, as I have already ordered above, that the Sub Registrar can only verify whether the necessary covenants and statements have been made in the document and if there is something to show that the person executing it has a right over the property. Since the petitioner says that the transfer of Registry of the property in question has already been made in her name, certainly, the Sub Registrar is bound by the same, unless it is set aside through a proper course of law. I, therefore, see no reason to change any of my directions as I have already made above.

I, however, deem it necessary to clarify that if any of the competent Revenue Authorities is to find in future that the property