A Sub Registrar must register documents unless prohibited by law, and prior agreements in civil court regarding property rights influence registration decisions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the daughter of the third respondent. The third respondent had way back on 31.3.1998 settled 25 cents of land situate in Sy.No.489/4/19/1 of Maranallur Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk Thiruvananthapuram District on the petitioner as per Ext.P1 settlement deed dated 31.1.1998 registered as document No.129/1988 of SRO, Oouruttambalam. Long thereafter on 18.6.2013, the petitioner executed the original of Ext.P2 sale deed in favour of her brother Biju, transferring her right over the property covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed. It is stated that when the said document was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Ooruttambalam he declined to register the sale deed pointing out that in Ext.P1 settlement deed it is stipulated that if the petitioner chooses to transfer her right in the property settled on her thereunder her father should join in the execution of the sale deed and that on the same day the petitioner should purchase another property in her name. The petitioner states that though there are stipulations to the aforesaid effect, no right is reserved with her father and therefore, the Sub Registrar erred in declining to register the sale deed. She has also stated that on 5.3.2013 she had purchased another item of property as per Ext.P3 sale deed dated 5.3.2013 registered as document No.334/2013 of SRO, Ooruttambalam and therefore the Sub Registrar could not have objected to the registration of Ext.P2 sale deed. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to register the original of Ext.P2 sale deed when presented for registration. Relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Sulabha v. Smt.Suseela & Anr. [1996 (1) KLJ 198], it is contended that the registering officer has no power to enquire into the validity of the document presented for registration and that he can refuse registration only if any of the grounds mentioned in rule 67 (a) to (e) of the Kerala Registration Rules exist. After the writ petition was filed and notice was ordered to the respondents, the petitioner filed I.A.No.15720 of 2013 and produced along with it as Ext.P5, a copy of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.332 of 1994 and O.S.No.347 of 1994. It is stated that as per the compromise decree her father who was a party to the aforesaid suit had agreed to recognize Ext.P1 gift deed dated 31.1.1998 registered as document No.129/1988 and therefore the Sub Registrar could not have declined to register the sale deed.

2. A statement dated 19.11.2013 has been filed by the first respondent. Paragraph 2 thereof is extracted below:

“It is stated that the petitioner herein had not presented the Exhibit P2 sale deed executed dated 18.6.2013 before the first respondent for registration. The petitioner approached the first respondent with a photocopy of the settlement deed No.129/1998 and raised some doubt regarding the transfer of her property by way of conveyance. On perusal of the document, the Registrar could notice that certain condition made by the executant - father. The condition that “when the property is alienated it should be done with my consent and also acquire another property in favor of the assignee-petitioner on the day itself”, is the condition included in the settlement deed. On perusing the record, it is seen that the settlement deed No.129 of 1998 has been cencelled by the executant - father in the year, 2000 and it is registered bearing No.806/2000 to that effect. The photocopy of the cancellation deed is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a). The first respondent has informed the petitioner regarding the cancellation. It is fundamental principle of law of property that a person is entitled to transfer his right or interest over immovable property, when a document is presented for registration, the Sub registrar cannot refuse registration as the right granted is assignable and unless it is prohibited by law. But