The registration of a gift deed is possible despite an existing attachment on the property.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking quashment of Ext.P4 note issued by the third respondent Sub Registrar, Kollam and also to direct him to register Ext.P3 gift deed under the provisions of the Registration Act .

2. The 2^nd petitioner is the daughter of the 1^st petitioner. The 1^st petitioner's husband A.Abdul Salam was a PWD contractor and he carried the business in the name of the partnership firm by name ‘Kaikara Construction Company’. After the death of Abdul Salam, the partnership was re-constituted by including the daughters of Abdul Salam and the 1^st petitioner. The 1^st petitioner has obtained a property having an extent of 6 Ares and 57 sq.mtr in Re-survey No.38/4/2 and a property having an extent of 1 Are 52 sq.mtr. in survey No 38/5-2-2 (total 8 Ares 9 sq.mtr) of Kollam West Village, as per Ext.P1 Settlement Deed executed by Abdul Salam. The front portion of the afore property, having an extent of 13 ares 24 sqms was given to the 2^nd petitioner by Abdul Salam, as per Ext.P2 Gift Deed. When the 1^st petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of the 2^nd petitioner in respect of Ext.P1 property and placed the same for registration before the 3^rd respondent, the same was returned, stating that there was an attachment over the said property. It was informed by the third respondent that the document could not be registered due to an order of the 2^nd respondent prohibiting registration of the deed and the same was communicated to the petitioners by Ext.P4 note. The petitioners understood that the reason for not registering the document is an attachment order passed against the property of Abdul Salam. It is in such circumstances, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking the afore reliefs.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the liability allegedly due from Abdul Salam, the account of the firm having about Rs.4.9 Crores is already under attachment and therefore, there is no need for a further attachment of the property of Abdul Salam. He also submitted that even if there is an order of attachment, it is not a bar for registering a gift deed, subject to attachment.

5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the respondents have no objection in directing the third respondent, Sub Registrar to register Ext.P3 gift deed, by noting the attachment existing in the property. He also submitted that the property was transferred by Abdul Salam to the first petitioner in the very same manner.

In the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the third respondent Sub Registrar can be directed to register Ext.P3 gift deed under the provisions of Registration Act , after noting the attachment existing over the property. The afore process shall be done, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-