Sub-registrar must register sale deed absent valid attachment; Sub-Collector's order prohibiting registration illegal.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, aggrieved by the arbitrary refusal of the 1strespondent SRO, Manjeri, to register a sale deed presented by him in respect of his property, has approached this court by filing this writ petition. 2. The petitioner purchased an extent of 16 Ares and 19 square metres of land, comprised in Old Survey No.138, Sub Division No.2B of Pullipadam Village, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram District, from one Johny, as per Ext.P1 sale deed, dated 29.10.2015. Prior to the purchase of the property by the petitioner, the predecessor-in-interest had commenced construction of a building in the said property. However, since the land was classified as nilam in the revenue records, the 4th respondent issued a stop memo to the predecessor, directing him to stop the construction. The petitioner has now entered into an agreement for sale of the said property in favour of three persons, namely, Mr.Kunjalan Haji, Mr.Saidalavi Haji and Mr. Ali. Pursuant thereto, a sale deed, dated 09.01.2026 (Ext.P4), was also executed by the petitioner in favour of the said purchasers. But when the sale deed was presented for registration, the 1strespondent, issued Ext.P6 memo to the petitioner, stating that an attachment bearing No.F79/2016 dated 01.09.2016, is seen recorded against the said property and the petitioner was directed to re-present the sale deed after lifting the attachment. It is the case of the petitioner that, there is no attachment registered against the subject property and it is only a proceeding initiated by the 4threspondent against the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest regarding construction activity in the subject property.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, going by Ext.P8, it can be seen that, there is no attachment in the property, which is sought to be sold. He also submitted that, the 1^st respondent is refusing to register the sale deed only because of Ext.P7 order, which is illegal.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, it is only because of Ext.P7 order issued by the Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna, the 1strespondent did not register the sale deed executed by the petitioner. 6. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P8 would clearly show that, there is no attachment existing over the property, which is sought to be sold by the petitioner. That apart, the Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna, has no authority to curtail the alienation of the property belonging to the petitioner by issuing Ext.P7 and therefore, the same is illegal.

In the light of the afore facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P7 order is quashed. Consequentially, there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to register Ext.P4 sale deed executed by the petitioner, in favour of Mr.Kunjalan Haji, Mr.Saidalavi Haji and Mr. Ali, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is also directed to present the sale deed for registration, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.