SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2439

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J
ABHILASH SO PARTHAN – Appellant
Versus
JOSU DEVASSIA SO M P DEVASSIA    Advocate -SRI ROY CHACKO – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 3982/2018



The Registration Officer lacks authority to cancel registered deeds under Section 83A without evidence supporting claims of impersonation or other jurisdictional requirements.

Headnote:

Registration - Property Disputes - Registration Act Section 83A - The court held that the Registering Officer lacked jurisdiction to cancel registrations under Section 83A as no jurisdictional facts for impersonation were established, determining the validity of the petitioner's sale deeds.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners claimed ownership of properties through valid sale deeds and referenced multiple tax receipts. A contentious property dispute arose when a respondent sought to cancel these deeds claiming inaccuracies in property boundaries, leading to multiple court petitions regarding the registrations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations made by the respondent did not meet the necessary conditions under Section 83A of the Registration Act to warrant cancellation of the sale deeds, as no evidence of impersonation or false statements was presented.

Issues: Whether the Registration Officer had the jurisdiction to cancel the registrations of the sale deeds based on the respondent's application invoking Section 83A of the Registration Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 83A could only be invoked if specific jurisdictional facts were present, such as impersonation, which were not established in the respondent's complaint.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioners, affirming the validity of their sale deeds.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners 1 to 4 herein claim that they are having ownership and possession of the properties covered by Exts.P-1 to P-4 sale deeds respectively and that they have paid tax in respect of those properties Exts.P-5 to P-8 land tax receipts. They would also state that they had obtained those properties from one Vinoji, on whom the properties belonging his father, Pavithran, had devolved. Further that Pavithran had obtained the properties by Ext.P-9 and P-10 pattas. It is the further case of the petitioners that contesting respondent No.9 had purchased 15.400 cents lying adjacent to the petitioners property, which in turn originally belonged to one Kumaran Vijayan, who obtained it by Ext.P-11 pattta, it is stated. That R-9 had purchased the said property by two sale deeds as per Exts. R9(a) and R-9(b) and that R-9 (c) is the prior title deed of Sri.Jojo. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the extent of land shown in Ext.P-11 is only 15.400 cents, whereas R-9 is now claiming 51.400 cents (in this regard R-9's case is that the prior title deed of Jojo Ext. R-9 (c) would show the extent of land as 51.4 cents). It is the further allegation of the petitioners that R-9 had trespassed into the properties of 3rd and 4th petitioners. That the 4th petitioner had filed Ext.P-12 suit seeking fixation of boundary and injunction in respect of the properties covered by Exts.P-4 to P-8. That in Ext.P-12 suit, the Munsiff had passed Ext.P-13 interim order of injunction against further trespass. That so also, the 3rd petitioner had filed Ext.P-14 suit for injunction pertainng to the property covered by Ext.P- 3 and P-7 and that the Munsiff had passed Ext.P-15 interim order of injunction therein.

2. Further it is stated that R-9 had filed Exts.P-16 and P-17 suits against petitioners 3 and 4. That in Ext.P-16 suit, the relief sought for is for a declaration that Exts.P-3 and P-4 sale deeds are not binding on them and to restrain 3rd and 4th petitioners from entering into the said properties and the extent of property shown therein is 51.400 cents. Further that in Ext.P-17 suit filed by R-9, the relief sought for is to set aside Exts.P-1 and P-2 sale deeds and to restrain petitioners 2 and 3 from entering into the said property.

3. Further it is stated that R-9 had filed application dated

6.12.2017 before the Minister for Registration seeking cancellation of Exts.P-1 to P-4 sale deeds. That the office of the Minister had in turn forwarded the said application to R-2 (DIG, Registration) for appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. That consequently R-2 had issued Ext.P-18 notice dated 20.12.2017 on the basis of the said application dated 6.12.2017. That as against Ext.P-18 notice, the petitioners had submitted Exts.P- 19 to P-22 objections.

4. The petitioners would also raise certain averments with regard to the issuance of the impugned Exts.P-23 to P-26 proceedings at the instance of the 7th respondent Tahsildar Cherthala, in respect of the matters connected with mutation of the petitioners' properties. It is in the light of these factual aspects that the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P-18 and all proceedings pursuant thereto, viz., Exts.P23 to P26 after calling for the records leading thereto; and b) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. The main ground urged by the petitioners is that the prayer in the application dated 6.12.2017 submitted by R-9, which is referred in Ext.P-18 notice, is only to cancel Exts.P-1 to P-4 sale deeds. The said petition dated 6.12.2017, referred to in Ext.P-18 notice dated 20.12.2017, as given on pages 82 and 83 of the paper of the Writ Petition, reads as follows:

"ബഹ(cid:3)മ(cid:5)നപ(cid:8)ട ക(cid:12)രള(cid:5) പ(cid:15)(cid:5)ത(cid:3)മര(cid:5)മത(cid:3)- രജ(cid:19)സക(cid:21)(cid:22)ഷൻ വ(cid:12)(cid:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top