Wednesday, May 31, 2017

HIGH COURT ON REGISTRATION OF WILL AFTER DEATH OF TESTATOR


HIGH COURT ON REGISTRATION OF WILL AFTER DEATH OF TESTATOR


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

        THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

                                   WP(C).No. 35695 of 2015 (J)
                                      ----------------------------

PETITIONER :
----------------------

            O.K.PAVITHRAN, AGED 57 YEARS
            S/O. LATE O.K.GOPALAN, 'GANGODRI', NEAR S.S. TEMPLE
            PAYYANUR, P.O.PAYYANUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK
            KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307.

            BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------

        1. SUB REGISTRAR
            SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,
            PAYYANUR, P.O. PAYYANUR
            KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307.

        2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR
            KANNUR AT THALASSERY,
            PIN-670 141.

            R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.K. SHERIN

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
            ON 17-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
            FOLLOWING:


Mn


                                                                      ...2/-

WP(C).No. 35695 of 2015 (J)
----------------------------------------

                                                      APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------

EXT. P1 :            COPY OF WILL DTD.27.4.2013 EXECUTED BY PETITIONER.

EXT. P2 :            COPY OF LATEST BASIC TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016
                     DTD.20.11.2015.

EXT. P3 :            COPY OF REQUEST DTD.20.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
                     BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS                     :        NIL
-----------------------------------------------------------

                                                                    //TRUE COPY//




                                                                    P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn



                       A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
                       ==================
                        W.P.(C).No. 35695 of 2015
                       ==================
             Dated this the 17th day of December, 2015
                              J U D G M E N T

     The petitioner had approached the Sub                            Registrar,

Payyannur for registering a will executed in his favour in terms

of Sec.40 of the Registration Act. The petitioner submits that will

can be registered in terms of Sec. 40 r/w Rule 84                         of the

Registration Rules.

     Sec.40 of the Registration Act provides as follows:

     "Section-40. (1) Persons entitled to present Wills and authorities to
     adopt - (1) The testator, or after his death, any person claiming as
     executor or otherwise under a Will, may present it to any Registrar
     or Sub-Registrar for registration.
            The way in which a Will is to be registered, after the death of
     testator, is provided under Part-XIII ( c ) of Registration of Rules
     (Kerala). Rule 85 deals with manner in which a Will is to be
     registered after the death."

     2.       The petitioner also refers to judgment of the Hon'ble

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) reported in AIR 2010

Allahabad 165, Krishna Kumar & Ors. v. Court of District

Registrar / A.D.M (F&R), Raebareli & Ors.                   In     the light of

Sec. 40(1) r/w Rule 84 Registration Rules (Rules) and also in the

W.P.(C).No. 35695 of 2015           - : 2 :-

light of the above judgment, the Sub Registrar shall consider the

request of the petitioner for registration within three weeks from

the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

        The writ petition is disposed of, as above.

                                                   sd/-

sab                                 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE




HIGH COURT ON COMPETENCY OF PRESENTANT


HIGH COURT ON COMPETENCY OF PRESENTANT


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

           FRIDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

                                   WP(C).No. 38524 of 2015 (M)
                                      ----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------

        1. SARASWATHI AMMA, AGED 64 YEARS,
            D/O.PURUSHOTHAMA BHAT AND
            W/O.K.VENKETRAMANA BHAT,
            RESIDING AT KATTATHADKA,
            PUTHIGE POST-671 321, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

        2. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 39 YEARS,
            S/O.SARASWATHI AMMA & K.VENKETRAMANA BHAT,
            RESIDING AT KATTATHADKA, PUTHIGE POST - 671 321,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

        3. SREEKRISHNA.K, AGED 38 YEARS,
            S/O.SARASWATHI AMMA & K.VENKETRAMANA BHAT,
            RESIDING AT KATTATHADKA, PUTHIGE POST - 671 321,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

         4. NATARAJ BHAT, AGED 36 YEARS,
            S/O.SARASWATHI AMMA & K.VENKETRAMANA BHAT,
            RESIDING AT KATTATHADKA, PUTHIGE POST - 671 321,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT.


            BY ADVS.SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
                         SMT.MINI V.MENON
                         SRI.P.VISHNU PRASAD

RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------

        1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE,
            BADIADKA, BADIADKA POST-671 541,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

        2. PRAMEELA K., AGED 29 YEARS,
            D/O.KARIYA AND W/O.HARISCHANDRA
            RESIDING AT KATTATHADKA, PUTHIGE POST-671 321,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT.


            R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERSRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
            ON 18-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
            FOLLOWING:
mbr/

WP(C).No. 38524 of 2015 (M)
---------------------------------------

                                           APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-------------------------------------

EXT.P1.              TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING NO.1305/1931
                     DATED 29/8/1931 OF THE S.R.O., KASARAGOD.

EXT.P1(A).           ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.

EXT.P2.              TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 13/2/2015 EXECUTED BY THE
                     PETITIOENRS IN FAVOUR OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2(A).           ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2

EXT.P3.              TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS BEARNING NO.X.N.DIS-13/5/2015
                     DATED 13/5/2015 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUB REGISTRAR.

EXT.P3(A).           ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:                  NIL
---------------------------------------

                                                           //TRUE COPY//


                                                           P.S.TO JUDGE


mbr/



                    A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
                 =====================
                      W.P(C)No.38524 of 2015
             ==========================
            Dated this the 18th day of December, 2015

                             JUDGMENT


       The petitioners presented Ext.P2 document for registration.

This has been rejected by the Sub Registrar, Badiadka stating

that no document is seen produced to show the vesting of

janmam right in respect of the property sought to be registered.

It is also stated that property is obtained as used for viniyogas of

the family diety and no documents have been produced to show

that vesting of the right transferred to the petitioners.

       2.   The competency has to be examined in terms of

Registration Act/Registration Rules is as a right to present a

document. Whether presenter of the document has a full fledged

right or possessory right is not a question to be determined for

the registration of property. The nature of ownership is not a

precondition. The right of the transferor alone can be conveyed,

and whatever be the mode of expression of right, unless such

right is attached with transferor,     transferee will not get any

right. The right that is available to the transferor alone could be

conveyed to the transferee. The nomenclature could be decisive

W.P.(c) No.38524/2015
                                 2



as to the stamp duty payable, if there is any clandestine way of

suppression about the actual right being conveyed. Therefore, an

enquiry can be conducted to the limited extent of examining the

document only to find out the right of the transferor for the

purpose of determining stamp duty. If competency is otherwise

established the claim of the transferor that he has full ownership

is immaterial for the registering authority for the purpose of

registration.

      3.    In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view,

considering the nature of objection raised, it is beyond the scope

of enquiry under the Registration Act.

      4. In that view of the matter, the Sub Registrar, Badiadka is

directed to register the document in accordance with law on

representation of the document.

      The writ petition is disposed of.



                                                    Sd/-
                                         A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
                                                  JUDGE

vdv/21/12/15




HIGH COURT ON NILAM PURAYIDOM REGISTRATION


HIGH COURT ON NILAM PURAYIDOM REGISTRATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

          FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

                                   WP(C).No. 38560 of 2015 (T)
                                      ----------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
----------------------

           MOHANDAS, AGED 69 YEARS,
           S/O. KRISHNAN, KOYMAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
           PONNANI P.O., PONNANI,
           MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577.

           BY ADVS.SRI.M.I.JOHNSON,
                         SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY.

RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------

          1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PONNANI,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-670 583.

          2. STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION,
             GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.


            BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR.


           THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
           ON 18-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
           FOLLOWING:


rs.

WP(C).No. 38560 of 2015 (T)




                                  APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-


EXT.P1     COPY OF THE DOC NO.28/2010 OF SRO, PONNANI.

EXT.P2     COPY OF THE DOCUMENT PRESENTED BEFORE THE
           1ST RESPONDENT FOR REGISTRATION SETTLEMENT
           DEED DATED 09/12/2015 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER
           IN FAVOUR OF HIS SON PRAMOD MOHANDAS.

EXT.P3     COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE
           1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P4     COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/11/2015 IN
           WP(C).NO.34843/2015 IN NUSHIYA VS. SUB REGISTRAR,
           PONNANI AND ANOTHER.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-        NIL.




                                                  //TRUE COPY//


                                                  P.S.TO JUDGE


rs.



                  A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
                 --------------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C) No. 38560 of 2015
                 --------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 18th day of December, 2015


                            J U D G M E N T

      The petitioner, aggrieved by the refusal of the

respondents      to    register        Ext.P2       settlement      deed, has

approached this Court. The objection seems to be that while

the subject property is registered as 'nilam' in the revenue

records, the same is shown as 'paramba' in the deed.

      2.     This Court, while considering an identical issue in

WP(C) no.33509/2014, ordered as follows;

             "2. Whether property is nilam or purayidam, the matter
      has to be considered while effecting mutation. Merely because
      the property is classified as paramba in the document will not
      inure to the benefit of any person, who claims it as purayidam.
      However, it is not a matter to be considered by the registering
      authority while registering the document. It is for the revenue
      officials to verify the actual classification while effecting
      mutation.    For the reason that the petitioner's property is
      classified as paramba in the document, registering authority
      cannot refuse to register the document. Registering authority
      shall register the document in accordance with law."

      In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the

registering authority to register the document in accordance

with law.

      The writ petition is disposed of as above.


                                                             Sd/-
                                             A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                                            JUDGE
bka/18.12.2015




HIGH COURT ON SARFAESI SALE AND ATTACHMENTS AFTER MORTGAGE


HIGH COURT ON SARFAESI SALE AND ATTACHMENTS AFTER MORTGAGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN
                                                            &
                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

                    FRIDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2015/2ND SRAVANA, 1937

                                              WA.No. 612 of 2015 ()
                                                --------------------------
              AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23435/2014 DATED 13-10-2014
                                                      ---------------

APPELLANTS / WRIT PETITIONERS :
------------------------------------------------------

        1. ALI ASHARAF M.M., AGED 44 YEARS
            S/O.MUSLIYAM VEETIL M.T. MOHAMMED
            RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.31/413
            KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY,ALATHOOR DESOM
            P.O CHITTANJUR, ANJUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK
            THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 523.

        2. SIMIYA ALI ASHARAF, AGED 37 YEARS
            W/O.ALI ASHARAF M.M., RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.31/413
            KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY,ALATHOOR DESOM
            P.O CHITTANJUR, ANJUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK
            THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 523.

            BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
-------------------------------------------------

        1. THE SUB REGISTRAR,
            THRISSUR-680 001.

        2. THE TAHSILDAR
            TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001.

        3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
            CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-680 001.

        4. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
            THRISSUR BAZAR BRANCH, SIB BUILDING
            THRISSUR MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD
            THRISSUR - 680 001
            REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER & REGIONAL OFFICE
            ROUND SOUTH, THRISSUR - 680 001
            REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

                                                                              ...2/-

WA.No. 612 of 2015 ()                -2-




    5. MRS. JULIE RAISON
       W/O.M.D.RAISON, MUTTICHUKARAN HOUSE
       OPPOSITE JUBILEE MISSION MEDICAL COLLEGE
       MOOSEPET ROAD, EAST FORT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 005.

    6. M.D.RAISON
       S/O.LATE M.K.DEVASSY, MANJALI HOUSE, GOSAYIKUNNU
       KURIACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR - 680 006.

    7. KERALA KSHEMAM UNIQUE KURIES (P) LTD
       WARD 10, DOOR NO.34, EASTERN BAZAR
       THRISSUR - 680 001.

    8. SAKTHAN KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD
       SAKTHAN TOWERS, X/55/21, PALLIKULAM ROAD
       P.B NO.219, THRISSUR - 680 001.

    9. HI-WEALTH KURIES (P) LTD
       THUSHARA 27/10-1, KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR ROAD
       ASWANI HOSPITAL JN., THRISSUR - 680 020.

   10. TRICHUR MONARCH CHIT FUND LTD.,
       ADAM BAZAR (RIZE BAZAR), THRISSUR - 680 001.

   11. OLARI LITTLE FLOWER KURIES (P) LTD
       LITTLE FLOWER CHURCH COMPLEX
       OPPOSITE TO CHANDRAMATHI AMMA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
       OLARIKKARA, THRISSUR - 680 012.

   12. KERALA KSHEMAM UNIQUE KURIES
       WARD 10, DOOR NO.34, EASTERN BAZAR,
       THRISSUR - 680 001.

       R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS
       R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE, SC
       R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER
        R7, R8 & R12 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI
        R9 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
                     SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
                     SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
        R11 BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN
                      SRI.PRAVEEN H.

       THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2015, THE
        COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


Mn



                      ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ
                                     &
                       A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
                       * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                        W.A.No.612 of 2015
                  ----------------------------------------
               Dated this the 24th day of July 2015


                         J U D G M E N T


Shaffique, J

      This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the

judgment dated 13/10/2014 in W.P.C.No.23435/2014 by which

petitioners were directed to approach the Munsiff Court, Thrissur

for vacating the order of attachment in respect of the property

which the petitioner has purchased under the proceedings under

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the SARFAESI Act').      Writ petition was filed on account of

refusal on the part of the Village Officer to effect mutation of the

property purchased by the petitioner in an auction sale conducted

under the SARFAESI Act. The reason for not effecting mutation

was on account of the attachments that have been effected by

the Munsiff Court, Thrissur in separate suits.             Petitioners also

obtained encumbrance certificate which reflected the attachment

orders issued by the Munsiff Court.

W.A.No.612/2015                       2


      2.    The main contention urged by the petitioners was that

the attachments were subsequent to 08/07/2008, the date of

mortgage and hence the attachment will not invalidate the right

and title of the petitioners in the property and accordingly the

petitioners sought for the following reliefs:

            a)     Call for the records leading upto Ext.P5 and

      issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ

      Order or Direction quashing Ext.P5 issued by the 2nd

      respondent to the extent that the same directs the

      Petitioner to have all the attachments shown in Ext.P6 to

      be effaced before effecting mutation in favour of the

      petitioner.

            b)     Declare that the sale of mortgaged property

      namely 10 cents (4 Are 05 Square Meters) of property

      along   with    all  rights   and   other improvements     in

      Sy.No.694/5 of Chembukkavu Village, Thrissur Taluk by the

      4th respondent in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P4 Sale

      Certificate, is free of all encumbrances;

            c)     Declare that attachments effected subsequent

      to the mortgage created on 08/07/2008 in favour of the 4th

      respondent bank do not affect the title and ownership of

      the petitioner over the subject property.

            d)     Issue a writ of mandamus or any other

      appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to

      remove    the     entries   in  their registers relating   to

      encumbrances over the subject property subsequent to the

W.A.No.612/2015                     3


      mortgage created on 08/07/2008 and to effect mutation of

      the property in favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as

      possible preferably within a period of maximum 2 months."

      3.    The learned Single Judge observed that any right

available to any creditor under the law will not be affected by

transfer of registry and therefore direction was issued to the

Village Officer to effect transfer of registry pursuant to Ext.P4 sale

certificate in favour of the petitioners within a period of three

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

However, it was observed that the said direction is subject to any

decision of the competent Civil Court. It is further observed that

the petitioners shall move the Munsiff Court for lifting the

attachment.

      4.    Learned counsel for the appellants, impugning the

aforesaid judgment, submits that in the light of the judgment of

this Court in Madhan v. Sub Registrar [2014(1) KLT 406],

learned Single Judge ought to have issued a declaration in regard

to the right of the petitioners and also should have directed the

Sub Registrar and Village Officer to efface the attachments

effected subsequent to the mortgage from the relevant records.

W.A.No.612/2015                    4


     5.     The learned Government Pleader, on instructions,

would submits that all the attachments effected by the Munsiff

Court, Thrissur in respect of the above property were after the

creation of mortgage on 08/07/2008. This fact is not disputed by

the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 9.

     6.     Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the

case put forward by the petitioner squarely falls within the law

laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Madhan

(supra) wherein paragraph 7 of the judgment held as under:

            "The preponderance of judicial opinion leads to the

     irresistible conclusion that the sale of the mortgaged

     property in favour of the petitioner under Ext.P5 sale

     certificate under the Act is free of all encumbrances. The

     attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage created

     in favour of the bank do not affect the title and ownership

     of the petitioner over the subject property.          Such

     attachments have no impact on the sale conducted under

     the Act and the same ceases to have any effect or fall to

     the ground the moment the sale is confirmed in favour of

     the petitioner. The declaration so sought by the petitioner

     is therefore granted and I further direct the Sub Registrar

     and the Village Officer to efface the attachments effected

     subsequent to the mortgage from the relevant records.

     Otherwise    those   attachments    would    remain  as   a

     permanent taboo prejudicially affecting the marketability

W.A.No.612/2015                    5


      and title to the property even though they ceased to have

      any legal efficacy. The needful in relation to the property

      bought by the petitioner shall be done within a period of

      two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

      judgment. The writ petition is allowed. No costs."

      7.    In the light of the aforesaid factual and legal issues, we

are of the view that the appellants are entitled for a similar order.

Accordingly, we declare that the attachments effected by the

Munsiff Court, Thrissur after the date of mortgage are invalid and

there will be a direction to the Sub Registrar and the Village

Officer to efface the attachments effected after 08/07/2008 in

their registers.

      Writ appeal is allowed as above.




                                                    (sd/-)

                         (ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE)

                                                    (sd/-)
                                     (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)


jsr

W.A.No.612/2015    6

W.A.No.612/2015    7

W.A.No.612/2015    8




HIGH COURT ON A CORRECTION OR RECTIFICATION DEED,DIVISION BENCH



HIGH COURT ON A CORRECTION OR RECTIFICATION DEED,DIVISION BENCH


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                  PRESENT:

                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
                                                         &
                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

                 FRIDAY,THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2015/1ST JYAISHTA, 1937

                          WA.No. 1102 of 2013 () IN WP(C).13018/2013
                                    --------------------------------------------


 JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13018/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-06-2013


APPELLANT/RESPONENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

           THE SUB REGISTRAR
           NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISRICT, PIN:679 329.

           BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.FAZIL

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

           TENNIS JOSEPH
           S/O JOSEPH, THEKKETHOTTIYIL HOUSE, NILAMBUR
           MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679329.

            BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

           THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2015, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING:

WA.No. 1102 of 2013


                             APPENDIX

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3841/07 OF SUB
REGISTRY OFFICE, NILAMBUR.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL




                      //TRUE COPY//            P.A.TO JUDGE

smv



                         ANTONY DOMINIC
                                       &
                        SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.
                 -----------------------------------------------
                      W.A. No.1102 of 2013
             -----------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 22nd of May, 2015


                              JUDGMENT


Antony Dominic,J.

     Respondent in writ petition No.13018 of 2013 is the

appellant. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein

seeking a direction to the appellant herein to treat Ext.P3 as a

correction deed and register the same in accordance with law.

By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge allowed

the aforesaid relief. It is this judgment which is under challenge

and the contention raised is that the document can be construed

only as a sale deed and that the applicable stamp duty should be

paid thereon.

     2. Having heard the learned Government Pleader for the

appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent, what we

find is that Ext.P1 is the sale deed obtained by the respondent

herein. By that document, he has purchased 15 cents of land of

which 1 cent of land is shown as situated in R.S.No.54/2 and 14

cents of land is shown as situated in R.S.No.54/4. In Ext.P3, the

W.A. No.1102 of 2013              2




aforesaid description of the property is sought to be corrected.

In this document though total extent of the property is retained

as 15 cents itself, 14 cents of land is shown to be in R.S. No.54/2

and 1 cent is shown to be in R.S. No.54/4. This, therefore, shows

that parties to Ext.P1 and P3 are the same, the extent of the

property remains the same and the only difference is that survey

number of the property is sought to be corrected. This,

therefore, means that Ext.P3 is only a correction deed and it was,

therefore, that the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to

treat Ext.P3 as a correction deed and register the document on

that basis. We do not think that this view taken by the learned

Single Judge suffers from any infirmity calling for interference.

     The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.




                                         Sd/-
                                 ANTONY DOMINIC
                                        JUDGE

                                          Sd/-
                                   SHAJI P. CHALY
                                        JUDGE


                   //true copy//      P.A. to Judge


smv




HIGH COURT OF KERALA ON PURAMPOKKU LAND SALE AND NOC AND COMPETENT OFFICER


HIGH COURT OF KERALA ON PURAMPOKKU LAND SALE AND NOC AND COMPETENT OFFICER


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY2015/7TH SRAVANA, 1937

                                              RP.No. 613 of 2015 (G)
                                             ---------------------------------
              AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34665/2014 DATED 19-12-2014
                                                     -----------------

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER :
----------------------------------------------------

            HAMZA KOYA
            S/O.ENIKUTTY, CHAMBANTAKATH HOUSE
            RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.TANUR-676302
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
            THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND WIFE ZEENATH.

            BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
-------------------------------------------------

        1. THE SUB REGISTRAR
            TANUR-676302, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

        2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

            R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.T. SHEEBA

            THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2015,
            THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


Mn


                                                                                  ...2/-

RP.No. 613 of 2015 (G)




                                   APPENDIX


PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :


ANNEXURE A1         : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03/04/2010 SENT BY WIFE
                      OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                      KOZHIKODE ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT AND POSTAL
                      ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.


ANNEXURE A2           COPY OF THE REPLYDATED 10/5/2010 GIVEN BY THE
                      COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE.


ANNEXURE A3           COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF NOTIFICATION UNDER
                      SECTION 28A OF THE REGISTRATION ACT.




RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL




                                                               //TRUE COPY//




                                                               P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn



                   A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
                --------------------------------------------
                Review Petition No. 613 of 2015
                -------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 29th day of July, 2015

                               O R D E R

      This Review Petition is filed at the instance of the writ

petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner has approached this

Court stating that the property situated in Re-Survey No.418/1A of

Tanur Village is a Government land and he wants to alienate the

property. On account of refusal of registering the documents, the

petitioner has approached this Court.

      2.    This Court taking note of the rigor of promise under

Section 71(3) of the Registration Act, directed the petitioner to

obtain NOC from the competent authority and disposed the writ

petition.

      3.    Thereupon the petitioner filed Clarification Petition as

I.A. No.2646/2015 stating that no competent officer has been

authorised by the State for obtaining permission.            This Court

clarified the judgment by an order dated 17.03.2015, in the light

of the Government Order as G.O.(MS) No.18/2014/TD dated

03.02.2014 stating that District Collectors of the Revenue Districts

are the competent officer to issue NOC.

      4.    The present review is filed based on the notification

under Section 28A of Stamp Act stating fixation of fair value.

R.P.No.613 of 2015                   2



Petitioner submits that since the value has been fixed, treating it

as a non-Government land, the judgment has to be reviewed.

       5.       The learned Government Pleader submits that, the

property is still shown as 'puramboku' in the Basic Tax Register

and it is a Government land and therefore review has to be

dismissed.

       6.       This Court taking note of the facts and circumstances

of the view that, the District Collector has to take a decision in the

matter whether this is a Government land or not. If it is found

that it is Government land necessarily, the application shall be

considered in terms of Section 71(3) of the Stamp Act.            The

petitioner has to move the District Collector within one week from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.            The District

Collector shall take appropriate decision after verifying the

relevant records and after hearing the petitioner within six weeks

thereafter. Needless to say, if it is found that it is not Government

land, Registering authority shall register the instrument without

waiting for production of NOC.

                                                Sd/-

                                 A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Pn




Monday, May 29, 2017

MUTATION IN VILLAGE RECORDS KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION



MUTATION IN VILLAGE RECORDS KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           PRESENT:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

             FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/23RD AGRAHAYANA 1934

                                  WP(C).No. 26565 of 2012 (U)
                                     ---------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
----------------------

             JIBBY MATHEW, AGED 24 YEARS,
             S/O.T.G.MATHEW, PUTHENVETTIL HOUSE,
             (THEKKUNILKKUNNATHIL MURUPEL), THENGUMKAVU.P.O.,
             MALLASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 646.

             BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------

          1. STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
             KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

          2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

          3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDHAR,
             KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHTITA.P.O.,
             PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.689 645.

          4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             PRAMADOM, PATHANAMTHTITA DISTRICT. 689 647.

             BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA.

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-12-2012,
            THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:




NS

WP(C).No. 26565 of 2012 (U)


                               APPENDIX


PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

EXT. P1- COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.08.2012 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF
         MR. SHAJI K.KOCHUKUNJU.

EXT.P2- COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2421/2012 DATED 07.08.2012.

EXT.P3- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE,
         PRAMADOM AFTER ACCEPTING FEES FOR EFFECTING MUTATION.

EXT.P4- COPY OF ORDER NO.H2-24430/12 DATED 03.11.2012 PASSED BY THE 3RD
         RESPONDENT.

EXT.P5- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
        IN W.P[C]NO.3661/09.

EXT.P6- COPY OF ATTACHMENT PETITION ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
         MR.VIJAYAKUMAR BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT(VACATION COURT),
         PATHANAMTHITTA.

EXT.P7- COPY OF THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT DATED 25.08.2012 PASSED BY THE
        DISTRICT COURT (VACATION COURT), PATHANAMTHITTA.

EXT.P8- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
        (VACATION COURT), PATHANAMTHITTA.


RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL




                                                   / TRUE COPY /

NS                                                 P.A. TO JUDGE



                         P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
               -----------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C)No.26565 of 2012
               -----------------------------------------
          Dated this the 14th day of December, 2012

                              JUDGMENT

      The petitioner purchased a parcel of land as per Ext.P2 sale

deed dated 7.8.2012 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,24,000/-.

He thereafter submitted an application dated 11.9.2012 for

effecting mutation in the revenue records.            Along with the

application he also remitted the prescribed fee of Rs.100/- as can

be seen from Ext.P3.        The Additional Tahsildar, Kozhencherry,

declined to act on the said application on the ground that in view

of the order of attachment passed on 25.8.2012 on I.A.Nos. 614

and 615 of 2012 by the Court of the District Judge of

Pathanamthitta (Vacation Court) mutation cannot be effected.

Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 and seeking the

following reliefs:-

           i.   Issue appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P4.

           ii.  Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate

                writ,   order    or    direction   commanding

                respondents 3 and 4 to effect transfer of

                revenue registry/mutation to the name of

                petitioner in respect of the property mentioned

                in Ext.P2.

W.P(C).No.26565 of 2012
                                    -:2:-

       2. The issue raised by the petitioner is covered in his favour

by the unreported decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.3661 of

2009     (Ext.P5)    and     in   Kuriakose     Elias    Trust    for

Communication and Development v. Principal Secretary,

Department of Revenue and others, 2009 (2) KHC 602 and

Thulasibhai C.C. v. State of Kerala and others, 2010 (4) KHC

142. In all these decisions it was held that mutation entries are

only for the purpose of enabling the State to collect land revenue

from the person in possession and will not confer any title to the

land and therefore, pendency of the suit or dispute relating to

title or an order of attachment is not a ground to refuse to effect

mutation in the revenue records. Even otherwise, on the terms of

rule 16 of the Transfer of Register Rules, 1966 even if mutation is

effected, it will not affect the rights of any other person or of the

State. I accordingly hold that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

       For the reasons stated above I allow the writ petition, set

aside Ext.P4 and direct the competent authority among the

respondents     to   effect   mutation   in  the   revenue    records

expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on

which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment.




                                                P.N.RAVINDRAN,
                                                        Judge.
ahg.

  P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C)No.26565 of 2012
----------------------------




       JUDGMENT




 14th December, 2012




Tuesday, May 23, 2017



STAMP DUTY EXEMPTION OF CO OP SOCIETY




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

      MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/10TH MAGHA, 1938

                  WP(C).No. 41156 of 2016 (T)
                  ----------------------------


PETITIONER(S):
-------------

            ELOOKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
            KADUNGALLOOR, ELOOKKARA MUPPATHADAM (P.O.),
            ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 101,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.


            BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH
                   SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY
                   SMT.SAVITHA GANAPATHIYATAN
                   SRI.M.M.SHAJAHAN

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

         1. DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
            CC 40/1017, 3RD FLOOR, PERUMPILLY BUILDING,
            OPP. MAHARAJAS GROUND, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 011.

         2. SUB REGISTRAR,
            OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRY ALANGD,
            KONGORPILLY (P.O.), ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 525.

         3. MADHU MOHAN,
            AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF MR.SUSHEELAN,
            CHERUPILLIL HOUSE, EDAYAPURAM,
            ERUMATHALA (P.O.), ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 101.


       R1-R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M. MANOJ

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
       ON 30-01-2017, ALONG WITH  WPC. 41160/2016 & CONNECTED
       CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



SKG

WP(C).No. 41156 of 2016 (T)
----------------------------


                            APPENDIX


PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------


EXHIBIT-P1:    COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER
               AND 3RD RESPONDENT CONFISCATED BY THE SUB
               REGISTRAR DATED 01.10.2016.

EXHIBIT-P2:    COPY OF THE ORDER/SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
               DISTRICT REGISTRAR IMPOSING PENALTY AND DEMAND OF
               DEFICIT STAMP DUTY DATED 20.10.2016.



RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------                     NIL

                                       /TRUE COPY/




                                      P.S. TO JUDGE

SKG



                  P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

         -----------------------------------------------

            W.P.(C) Nos.41156, 41160, 41163

                   41167, 41196 of 2016

         -----------------------------------------------

         Dated this the 30th day of January, 2017


                          JUDGMENT



          The common petitioner in these writ petitions is

a co-operative society. They presented a few documents

executed in their favour for registration before the second

respondent. The second respondent took the view that the

documents have not been duly stamped and consequently

impounded the same under Section 33 of Kerala Stamp Act

and forwarded the documents impounded to the first

respondent, exercising the power of the Collector,           as

provided for in Section 37(2) of the Act.              The first

respondent, thereupon, issued communications to the

petitioner directing them to remit the stamp duty and

W.P.(C) Nos.41156 of 2016
& con. Cases                     -2-


penalty.     The      communications  issued   by  the   first

respondent to the petitioner in this connection are under

challenge in these writ petitions.

            2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

as also the learned Government Pleader.

            3.    The petitioner has not remitted the stamp

duty payable in respect of the documents. This fact is not

in dispute. According to the petitioner, they are entitled to

remit stamp duty in respect of the documents by virtue of

a    notification,      S.R.O.No.75/1960    issued  by    the

Government under Section 40(1)(a) of the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Act. According to respondents 1 and 2,

the petitioner is not entitled to the remission provided for

under the said notification in respect of the documents,

for, the said documents would not come within the purview

of the said notification.     Be that as it may, according to

the learned counsel for the petitioner, in so far as the

W.P.(C) Nos.41156 of 2016
& con. Cases                   -3-


registration of the documents was refused, the second

respondent ought to have passed an order under Section

71 of the Registration Act. The limited prayer made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, is

for a direction to the Registering Authority to pass orders

as provided for under Section 71 of the Registration Act.

            4.     I am afraid, the provision contained in

Section 71 of the Registration Act has no application to the

facts of the present case. Section 71 of the Registration

Act would apply only when the registration of the

document is refused by the Sub Registrar. The registration

of the documents presented by the petitioner has not been

refused by the Sub Registrar. Instead, the Sub Registrar

has impounded the documents, in exercise of his powers

under Section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, as it was found

that the documents are not duly stamped, and forwarded

to the Collector as provided for under Section 37(2) of the

W.P.(C) Nos.41156 of 2016
& con. Cases                   -4-


Kerala Stamp Act. The communications impugned in the

writ petitions are       communications issued by the first

respondent, exercising the power of the Collector as

provided for under Section 39(1)(b) of the Kerala Stamp

Act.       Since Section 71 of the Registration Act has no

application to the facts of the present cases, the prayer

sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be

granted.      The writ petitions, in the circumstances, are

dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment

will not preclude the petitioner from getting the documents

registered by remitting the stamp duty and the penalty, in

accordance with Section 41 of the Kerala Stamp Act.




                                                Sd/-
                                       P.B. SURESH KUMAR
                                               JUDGE
bpr






MUSLIM DIVORCE KERALA HIGH COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

              MONDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/20TH CHAITHRA, 1939

                             WP(C).No. 10813 of 2017 (B)
                                 ----------------------------


PETITIONER(S):
-------------

        1.      AMINA
                AGED 25, D/O.ZAKKARIYA,
                HABSA MANZIL, NEAR PAVIZHAM TRAVALS,
                KAVARATHY, LAKSHADWEEP-682 555.

        2.      MUHAMMED SHAN U.B.
                AGED 25, S/O.BASHEER,
                UPPOOTTIL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR-683 543.


                BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SIYAD

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

                SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
                MINI CIVIL STATION,
                PERUMBAVOOR, KERALA-683 542.


                R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
                10-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
                FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 10813 of 2017 (B)
----------------------------

                                      APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------




EXHIBIT P1 : ATRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN PLP NO.30/2015

EXHIBIT P2 : ATRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE KAZI OF KAVARATHY.

EXHIBIT P3 : ATRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KAZI SHOWING THAT SHE
                     WAS NEVER REMARRIED AFTER THE THALAQ.

EXHIBIT P4 : ATRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO REGISTER THEIR MARRIAGE.

EXHIBIT P5 : ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 3-2-2017.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:             NIL
-----------------------


                                                       //TRUE COPY//


                                                       P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk



                        SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
                           ----------------------------
                    W.P.(C). No. 10813 of 2017
             ----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 10th day of April, 2017

                              JUDGMENT

      First petitioner is a divorcee and is a native of Kavarathy

Island, Lakshadweep. She was divorced by the husband,

consequent to a settlement on the intervention of the State Legal

Service Authority, Kavarathy in PLP No.30/2015, evident from

Ext.P1. After the PLP was filed, the husband of the first petitioner

pronounced Talaq before the               Kazi, Kavarathy, evident from

Exts.P2 and Ext.P3 certificate issued by the Kazi. With the

intention of getting married to the second petitioner, both parties

have submitted an application under the provisions of the Special

Marriage Act, 1954. Consequent to which, Ext.P5 was issued by

the first respondent dated 3.2.2014 directing the petitioner to

produce the divorce decree in favour of the first petitioner, a

certificate to show that she has not remarried, and further to

produce the name of the office of the Sub Registrar, within whose

jurisdiction the first petitioner is residing at Kavarathy. According

to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this question was

considered by this Court in the judgment in Abdul Khader

W.P.(C). No. 10813 of 2017
                                 2

Suhud v. State of Kerala (2010 KHC 3397) and held that, the

certificate issued by a Muslim Juma-Ath evidencing the

pronouncement of Talaq is alone sufficient as a proof of divorce

so far as a Muslim women is concerned. Therefore, according to

the counsel, Ext.P5 notice issued by the first respondent directing

the petitioner to produce a copy of decree of divorce cannot be

sustained in view of the judgment rendered by this Court and the

proposition of law laid down thereunder.

      2.     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and

pleadings

      3.     The sole question to be considered is whether the

insistence made by the first respondent in Ext.P5 to produce the

decree of divorce can be sustained under law. As discussed above

this aspect was considered       by this Court in the judgment

specified above and has held that a certificate issued by the

Muslim Juma-Ath will suffice the situation. In that view of the

matter, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners are also

entitled to get benefit of the proposition of law so laid down by

this Court.

      4.     Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first

W.P.(C). No. 10813 of 2017
                                    3

respondent to consider the application submitted by the

petitioners, in accordance with law, taking into account Exts.P2

and P3 certificates issued by the Muslim Juma-Ath and register

the marriage in accordance with law. It is also made clear that,

the first petitioner shall produce the details of the office of the

SRO within whose jurisdiction petitioner is residing at Kavarathy,

in accordance with the serial No.3 requirement in Ext.P5.

             Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

                                                       Sd/-

                                         SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

dlk/10/4/