The registering authority must register documents if procedural compliance is met, regardless of title disputes.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 25th day of February, 2026)

The petitioner's grandfather's brother late Kelan’s wife Ammalu had executed a jenmom assignment deed no.1051/2003 dated 27/02/2003 of SRO, Mannarkkad in respect of 5½ cents of property in RS No.105/2 of Kalladikkode amsom in Karimba-II village in Mannarkkad taluk. In Ext.P1, the derivation of title is that the executant Ammalu, obtained the property on the death of her husband Kelan. Kelan and his brother Ramandi, jointly obtained a purchase certificate bearing No.295/1975 in OA No.870/1972 issued by Ottapalam Special Munsiff Land Tribunal in their favour and after their death, the property devolved on her.

2. The petitioner is in possession of the property from

2003 onwards and Ext.P3 is the Tandaper account register extract dated 14.10.2024 and the basic tax receipt dated 30.05.2025 is produced as Ext.P4. The petitioner wants to settle the property in favour of his daughter. Therefore, a settlement deed was executed and engrossed in stamp paper worth ₹3,000/- and produced it before the 2^nd respondent. At the time of preparation of the deed, it was found that there is a mistake in Ext.P1 assignment deed regarding the derivation of title. In fact, the property was not derived as per the purchase certificate, but through a partition deed No.4785/1982 in which 'A' schedule was allotted to Kelan and his brother Ramandi and on the death of Kelan, the property devolved on his wife Ammalu, thus, obtaining half share in the property. When this mistake was noted, the same was sought to be corrected by incorporating a paragraph in the settlement deed.

3. When the second respondent noted the change in the derivation of title, the same was forwarded to the District Registrar for adjudication and the District Registrar by Ext.P7 informed that since the survey number differs as well as the derivation of title, the same cannot be registered as the same ought to have been corrected by the earlier owner itself. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 in this writ petition and prays for an issue of writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to register Ext.P5 settlement deed in favour of his daughter.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent and submits that the petitioner derived the title of the property vide Ext.P1 document, which is a jenmom sale deed. In Ext.P1, it is specifically stated that Ramandi and Kelan obtained the property as per the purchase certificate in their favour. On the death of Kelan, the half right of Kelan devolves on Ammalu and Ammalu had executed the half right which she obtained from Kelan in favour of the petitioner. Through Ext.P5 the petitioner intends to transfer the property in favour of the daughter. When this was presented and on perusal, it was noted that the derivation of title has changed significantly. The property was transferred to the petitioner by Ammalu as per Ext.P1. It records that Ramandi and Kelan obtained the property through a purchase certificate issued by Ottapalam Special Munsiff Land Tribunal in their favour.

5. The brothers died and upon their death, the property devolved on Ammalu who executed Ext.P1 who is claiming to be the sole heir. It is contended that in Ext.P1 deed, it is stated that Ammalu was the sole legal heir, but the purchase certificate was allotted to Ramandi and Kelan in the year 1975. The property mentioned in Ext.P8 partition deed was divided among Ramandi, Kelan and Vasu. Property mentioned in Schedule 'A' was allotted to Ramandi and Kelan, and the property in Schedule 'B' was allotted to Vasu. Therefore, the property in both the partition deed and the purchase certificate were in joint possession of Ramandi and Kelan. After Ramandi's deat