2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 78310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VANDHITHA MANI NAMBIAR – Appellant
Versus
VILLAGE OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 7403/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 7403 OF 2022 PETITIONER:
VANDHITHA MANI NAMBIAR, AGED 52 YEARS W/O SALILDHAR, TC, 31/944(1), PUTHENTODE, PALCULANGARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HER FATHER VIKRAMAN MANI @ P.M.MANY, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O P.K. THIRUMULPAD, TC 31/944(1), PUTHENTODE, PALKULANGARA P.O, PIN 695024, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.
V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR ANOOP KRISHNA RESPONDENTS:
1 VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE KANDANASSERY, MUKUNDHAPURAM TALUK PIN 680102, THRISSUR DISTRICT
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTER, KUNNAMKULAM, PIN 680503, THRISSUR DISTRICT
3 MANJUSHA RANJITH, AGED 40 YEARS W/O RANJITH, SANTHIMADOM, THEKENALUVASHI, N.PARAUR P.O., PIN 683513, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that issues identical to ones impelled in this case have already been considered by this Court in W.P. (C) No.30214/2021 – which was pending between the same parties – thus having culminated in a judgment dated 03.01.2022. She says that the holdings in the afore judgment should apply to this case also because the subject matter properties were common, though it, however, related only to one among them. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P2 document be directed to be registered by the first respondent, without insisting on any Record of Right (RoR) certificate to be obtained from the Revenue Authorities.
2. The afore request of Sri.V.A.Pradeep Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Amminikutty, saying that, on account of the binding precedents, the Sub Registrar has not asked the petitioner to produce any RoR certificate. She, however, accused the petitioner in having approached this Court without presenting Ext.P2 for registration before the said Authority.
Taking note of the afore submissions and recording it, I allow this writ petition and leave liberty to the petitioner to produce the original of Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent - Sub Registrar; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and registered as per law and after compliance of all statutory and imperative requirements; as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one week thereafter; without insisting RoR certificate being produced by her from the Revenue Authorities.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7403/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION APPLICATION IN EP.NO. 118/2017 IN OS. NO. 56/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA (DECREE TRANSFERED FROM CHAVAKKAD, SUB COURT)
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1865/2011 OF SRO, KUNNAMKULAM IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT EXECUTED BEFORE THE MEDIATION CENTRE, IRINJALAKUDA COURT, DATED 22/09/2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF DECREE IN OS.NO.56/2014 DATED
30/08/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE CHAVAKKAD SUB COURT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF KANDANASSERY VILLAGE