A document presented for registration takes legal effect from its actual date of execution, rather than any date arbitrarily mentioned in its opening paragraph.

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This Writ Appeal filed by the State impugns the judgment dated 13.01.2016 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1257 of 2016. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

The writ petitioners, two in number, had approached this Court through the Writ Petition aforementioned alleging that although they had presented Ext.P1 Jenmam Assignment Deed executed in their favour for registration before the 2^nd respondent- appellant on 06.02.2012, the same was not registered by the 2^nd respondent immediately, without assigning any specific reason for refusal of the registration. It was their further case that although they had again approached the Sub Register's Office on 27.10.2015 with a view to getting the aforesaid Assignment Deed registered, the Deed was not registered even on that date. Under the aforesaid circumstances, they were constrained to file a complaint (Ext.P2) before the 2^nd respondent, to which the 2^nd respondent issued a reply dated 11.11.2015 (Ext.P3), stating that there was no merit in the complaint preferred by them before him. It was impugning the said action of the respondent in refusing to register the Assignment Deed that the writ petitioners approached this Court with the Writ Petition aforementioned, wherein they sought a direction to the 2^nd respondent to register Ext.P1 Assignment Deed with effect from 06.02.2012. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge vide the judgment impugned in this appeal by the State.

2. In the Writ Appeal before us, it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State that notwithstanding the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to register Ext.P1 document by treating the same as executed on 06.02.2012, and after collecting necessary fees for belated presentation, the respondents-writ petitioners did not actually re- present Ext.P1 document before the appellants. In fact, they rely on a communication dated 12.08.2016, received from the Sub Registrar, Kuttipuram, that would show that the respondents-writ petitioners had given up their request for registration of the document dated 06.02.2012, which was actually executed only on 18.06.2012. The aforesaid communication of the Sub Registrar, Kuttipuram, also indicates that the respondents-writ petitioners had subsequently presented a new document for registration, which also met with a similar fate of refusal of registration. However that document is not a subject matter of these proceedings.

3. It is the further submission of the learned Government Pleader that the settled law on the subject being that a document once registered takes effect from the date of execution, the document presented by the writ petitioners would only take effect from the date on which it was executed by the parties by putting their signatures thereto. It is pointed out that even from a perusal of Ext.P1 document that was produced by the writ petitioners, it is clear that they had signed the document only on 18.06.2012, although it is the date “06.02.2012” that is mentioned in the opening paragraph of Ext.P1 Deed. The learned Government Pleader points out, therefore, that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge suffers from a factual and legal mistake to the extent it directs the registration of the document as and when presented, by treating the same as executed on 06.02.2012. According to the learned Government Pleader, the document if presented for registration, had to be seen as executed only on 18.06.2012. She is quick to point out, however, that in the instant case, the said document was never