SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Basant Balaji, J
ROBY ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43358 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP, SMT.RESHMA VISWANATHAN
For the Respondents: GP SRI. K.M FAISAL

A direction for property registration can be granted if the petitioner is not a party to any pending legal disputes concerning the property.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a direction for registering sale deeds concerning property owned after prior purchases. The court found that previous legal proceedings did not include the petitioner, therefore following earlier judgments, it permitted registration for the deeds, subject to further conditions. The main issue addressed was confirming the non-involvement of the petitioner in pending suits affecting registration, leading to the court's directive on registration procedures.

Table of Content
1. relief for property registration after clear ownership. (Para 1)
2. clarification on non-involvement in existing suits. (Para 2 , 3)
3. direction to register property documents. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of December, 2025 The relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is for a direction to the Sub Registrar, Agali/ 2nd respondent, to permit the petitioner to register the sale deed or any such other deed to any prospective buyers for the property of the petitioner within a time frame. The petitioner has purchased 6.25 cents of property in Sy.No.1162/14 of Agali Village and 10 cents of property in Sy.No.1162/14 in the same Village by virtue of two sale deeds in the years 2009 and 2010. After effecting mutation, the petitioner has become the absolute owner of the same. When the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed for effecting the sale of the property, it was informed that the registration cannot be done in view of the pendency of O.S.No.95 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid suit was in relation to a large extent of property in the same survey number. The plaintiff in the said suit filed I.A.Nos.7 of 2024 and 8 of 2024 to implead around 100 persons in the said suit, which was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order. Ext.P6 is the judgment of this Court in respect of another person, whose property was not registered by the 2nd respondent on the same ground that there is a suit pending. This Court, by Ext.P6 judgment, disposed of the same directing the Sub Registrar to register the document, if the petitioner is not a party to the suit.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the impleading petition has already dismissed, the petitioner is not a party to the suit, and, therefore, a similar direction as Ext.P6 can be given to the Sub Registrar/2nd respondent to register the document.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that if the petitioner is not a party to the suit, registration can be done.

4. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, direction the Sub Registrar, Agali, to register the documents produced by the petitioner, if he is satisfied with the other conditions and on production of the copy of the order dismissing the impleading petition. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of production of the document as well as the order of the Sub Court, Ottappalam.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top