The Registering Officer cannot refuse registration of a document for lack of prior title deeds under the Kerala Registration Rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed, seeking a direction to the Sub Registrar Mattanur, to register a deed of partition submitted for registration by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late Sri.Keshavanunny Nair, who died on 22.03.1998. At the time of his death, his wife and 7 children, including the petitioner were alive and they were his legal heirs. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner and two of the petitioner’s siblings passed away. Sri Keshavanunny Nair died intestate and at the time of his death, he was in possession of six items of property. The petitioner and other legal heirs of Late Sri. Keshavanunny Nair, then decided to partition the afore properties, which were in the name of their father. Accordingly, they executed a partition deed among themselves and prepared a draft deed for registration. When they approached the Sub Registrar to register the partition deed, he refused to register the document, by stating that, there is no back document, for one among the properties i.e., the property situated in Sy.No.116/124, having an extent of 4 Ares and 5 sq.m. The petitioner’s father, had obtained the said property as part of a settlement agreement arrived at in O.S No.84/1997, which was pending before the Sub Court Thalassery. During the pendency of the execution petition, the decree holder/plaintiff and the judgment debtor/petitioner’s father, entered into a settlement and as per the settlement, the decree holder/plaintiff decided to discontinue the execution proceedings against the judgment debtor/petitioner’s father and thus, the petitioner’s father obtained the afore property. It is hence, aggrieved by the refusal to register the partition deed by the 5^th respondent, this writ petition has been filed, seeking the afore relief.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the 5^th respondent in not registering the partition deed, is illegal and cannot be sustained. She argued that, the 5^th respondent has no authority to refuse registration citing absence of documents and he has no power to require production of prior title deeds relating to the property. She further, by relying on Rule 67 of the Kerala Registration Rules, submitted that, the Sub Registrar does not have any power to conduct an enquiry into the validity of any document and the afore objection, will not come within any of the circumstances enumerated in Rule 191 of the Rules.

5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that, it is only because of the fact that the petitioner did not produce the partition deed, the Registering Officer has refused the registration.

6. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per Rule 191 of the Kerala Registration Rules, the Registering Officer cannot refuse registration of a document submitted before him on the ground of non- production of title deed or prior document relating to the property. Similarly, as per Rule 67 of the Rules, the Registering Officer cannot enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration on the ground that the executing party has no title to execute the document (See Muhammed Kutty Vs. Sub Registrar and Another W.P(c) No.35494 of 2024 dated 27.11.2024)

In such circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the 5^th respondent to register the partition deed submitted by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of its presentation before him.