Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J
Muralee Krishna – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar, Kattappana – Respondent
WP(C) 32362/2024
For the Petitioner: [Names not provided]
For the Respondents: [Names not provided]
Writ petitions cannot compel registration of documents lacking necessary property descriptions as mandated by law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 21 - Writ petition seeking registration of correction deed - Petitioner argued that the respondents did not challenge possession of property and that the correction deed executed by the Munsiff Court should be registered - Court held that the document lacked necessary details for registration as mandated by law. (Paras 6, 11, 13, 14)
(B) Legal Description - Requirement of sufficient property description in registration documents - Court emphasized the need for clear identification of property in compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to register a correction deed for land previously owned by his predecessor, which included discrepancies in survey numbers. The Village Officer refused to accept tax payments due to these inconsistencies. The Munsiff Court directed the correction deed, but the Sub Registrar denied registration due to insufficient details.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the correction deed did not meet the requirements of Section 21 of the Registration Act, as it lacked necessary property descriptions. The petitioner was advised to seek remedy through the Civil Court instead of a writ petition.
Issues: Whether a direction can be issued to register a correction deed without including new survey numbers and other required details.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the correction deed must comply with statutory requirements for property description to be valid for registration.
Result: The writ petition stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sought registration of a correction deed due to discrepancies in property records. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the necessity of property descriptions for registration. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court emphasized statutory requirements for property description in registration documents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed; petitioner should seek remedy through civil court. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner is a priest serving abroad who filed this writ petition through his power of attorney holder under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari [sic: writ of mandamus] directing the 1st respondent Sub Registrar, Kattappana, to register Ext.P10 correction deed executed by the learned Munsiff of Kattappana, as ordered in O.S.No.183 of 2020 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kattappana.
2. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner, namely, one Kurian Alexander of Thiruvalla had applied for patta for an extent of 4 acres of land in survey No.288 of Vandanmedu Village of Udumbanchola Taluk in the year 1965. After complying with the formalities for the issuance of patta, he was issued with Ext.P1 patta dated 21.12.1976. As per the application submitted by Kurian Alexander, he sought patta for 2 acres 90 cents in survey No.288/10 and 64 cents in survey No.288/11 of Vandanmedu Village. Ext.P2 Thandaper Account maintained in the Village office also shows the said extent of property in different survey numbers in the name of Kurian Alexander. Thereafter, mutation was effected in his name and he paid basic tax evidencing which Ext.P3 receipt dated 02.02.1979 was also issued by the Village Officer. On 27.04.1978, as per Ext.P4 sale deed, the father of the petitioner M.O Joseph purchased 3.34 acres of land out of the above said 3.54 acres of land covered by Ext P1 patta from Kurian Alexander. One Chackochan, who is the brother of the petitioner had purchased the remaining 20 cents of property from the legal heirs of Kurian Alexander by virtue of a sale deed bearing No.562/2004 of SRO Kattappana dated 26.02.2004. When the petitioner went to the Village Office, Anakkara, which was bifurcated from Vandanmedu Village to pay land tax in respect of the said 3 acres and 34 cents of his father, the Village Officer refused to accept the tax stating that the father of the petitioner never held 64 cents of land in survey No.288/11. The Village Officer pointed out the absence of survey No.288/11 in Ext.P1 patta. To correct the said clerical error, the petitioner moved before the 2nd respondent and as per Ext.P5 order dated 28.02.2019, the 2nd respondent directed to add survey No.288/11 in Ext.P1 patta and connected documents in the Village records. After correcting the revenue records, the petitioner paid basic tax and was issued with Ext.P6 receipt. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S. No.183 of 2020 before the Munsiff Court, Kattapana, against the legal heirs of the vendor, Kurian Alexander to execute a correction deed in respect of the survey number of the property covered by Ext.P4. As per Ext.P8 judgment dated 30.07.2021, the learned Munsiff directed the legal heirs of Kurian Alexander to execute the correction deed by adding survey No.288/11 also in Ext.P4. Since they did not comply with the direction in the judgment, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 E.P.No.22 of 2021 before the Munsiff Court, Kattapana. In the execution petition, the learned Munsiff executed Ext.P10 correction deed and sent it for registration to the office of the 1st respondent Sub Registrar, Kattappana. But the 1st respondent refused to register Ext.P10 correction deed stating that it does not contain resurvey number, block number, sub division number etc. Hence the petitioner approached this Court with the above writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting the derivation of title pleaded in the writ petition. However, it is further stated in
