An excluded co-owner may execute a new partition deed and does not have to be bound by a previous deed they did not sign.

JUDGMENT

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“I. Issue a Writ pf Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to quash Exhibit-P3;

II. Declare that the action of the respondent in issuing Exhibit-P3 notice on wrong assumption; without any authority of law and hence liable to be declared as invalid;

and III. to issue such other Writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. The petitioner and his three brothers viz., Vasu, Velayudhan and Pushpakaran @ Appu are the legal heirs/legal representatives of their deceased father. After the death of the father, the petitioner (Parameswaran) and his brothers, Vasu, Velayudhan and Pushpakaran @ Appu, who are said four legal representatives of the deceased predecessor, have been shown as executants in Ext.P-2 deed of partition, which was drawn up for partitioning the property of the deceased father. Respective shares have also been duly allotted to all the four legal representatives, who are formally named as executants in Ext.P-2 partition deed. All the co-sharers, except the abovesaid Pushpakaran @ Appu have duly signed and executed Ext.P-2 deed. Ext.P-2 partition deed was registered as document No.119/1992 on 20.01.1992 before the SRO, Akkikkavu. The abovesaid Pushpakaran @ Appu had thereafter never formally signed and executed Ext.P-2 deed. But he is shown as one of the co-sharers and his share of property has also been duly allotted thereunder.

3. Later, the abovesaid Vasu had died and it is stated that his legal representatives are Shajan, Sheeja, Shila and Sarada. It is stated that when Sri.Pushpakaran @ Appu had requested that his share is to be duly allotted, so as to register such document, as such right could be claimed by him only on the basis of a registered deed to which he is an executant and signatory, etc. It is stated that thereupon the petitioner and his other brothers as well as the legal representatives of the deceased brother Vasu were advised to execute yet another partition deed. Accordingly, the petitioner (Parameswaran), Velayudhan, Pushpakaran @ Appu (who is not a signatory of Ext.P-2 partition deed) and the abovesaid Shajan, Sheeja, Shila and Sarada, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Vasu, had executed Ext.P-1 partition deed dated 01.06.2017 and the same was registered as deed No.1094/2017 before the SRO, Akkikkavu, whereby the respective shares have been allotted to the deed of the abovesaid executants of Ext.P-1 registered partition deed dated 01.06.2017. It is not in serious dispute that the entire stamp duty (as referred to in Ext.P-5) and registration fee has been duly paid for Ext.P-2 partition deed No.119/1992, in respect of the shares of all the co-owners mentioned therein, including the non-executant co-owner Sri.Pushpakaran. So also, it is not under serious dispute that the entire stamp duty and registration fee for the execution of Ext.P-1 partition deed No.1094/2017 dated 01.06.2017 has also been paid and registration fee has been paid thereon @1% of the fair value of the entire subject property is concerned in that partition deed and it is not restricted to the individual share of the non- executant/excluded co-owner Sri.Pushpakaran. However, the petitioner and the other executants of Ext.P-1 deed have omitted to mention therein about the execution and registration of the previous deed as per Ext.P-2 deed No.119/1992 of SRO, Akkikkavu.

4. Later, the respondent-District Registrar has issued the impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 12.11.2018 ordering therein that the executants of Ext.P-1 deed dated 01.06.2017 have not disclosed about the execution and registration of the previous deed as per Ext.P-2 and that execution of a subsequent partition deed, as per Ext.P-1 dated 01.06.2017 as between the co-owners, who have already executed and registered previously Ext.P-2 partition deed, is illegal and improper and further that