Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 752 (KER)

Madhusoodanan Nair v. Sub Registrar

2013-08-26

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is stated as owner of the property having an extent of 33 Ares, 85 square meters comprised in Survey Nos.153/2 and 153/3 of Karumady Village. To start a joint venture, the petitioner was made to execute a Sale Deed No. 302/2009 of SRO, Ambalapuzha, on 7/2/2009 in favour of the transferee. But, later, the petitioner realised that, it was by virtue of an instance of fraud, that the petitioner was made to subscribe his signature to the above Sale Deed. Immediately, the petitioner approached the Sub Court, Aalppuzha by filing O.S. No.71/2009 seeking declaration to the effect that the Sale Deed was null and void. It is stated that the suit was decreed ex parte, in favour of the petitioner, as borne by Ext.P2 dated 29/10/2011. The petitioner also points out that pursuant to the said decree, mutation and other formalities are completed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is enjoining the property, also remitting the tax and retaining the possession. But, on taking an encumbrance-free certificate, the petitioner came to realise that the declaration made by the Sub Court has not been entered in the relevant records and in the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the respondent for effecting necessary entries, which has not come out successful and hence the writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the mandate under the statutory prescription as per Section 89 (5) (b) of the Registration Act, the respondent is bound to effect necessary entires and the refusal on the part of the respondent is liable to be interfered by this Court. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent as well, who submits that, there is absolutely no fault or laches on the part of the respondent in this regard and as borne by the legal provisions, it is obligatory for the party to take necessary steps to have the verdict passed by the Civil Court to be communicated to the respondent, for being acted upon. Section 89 (5) of the Act reads as follows: "89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed :- {(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxx} (5). Section 89 (5) of the Act reads as follows: "89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed :- {(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxx} (5). Every Court passing- (a) any decree or order creating, declaring, transferring, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest to or in immovable property in favour of or of any person, or (b) an order for the attachment of immovable property or for the release of any immovable property from attachment, shall sent a copy of such decree or order together with a memorandum describing the property, as far as may be practicable in the manner required by Section 21, to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such decree or order is situate, and such officer shall file the copy and memorandum in his Book No.1." Obviously, the stipulation under Section 89(5)(b) is categoricaly to the effect that, necessary communication has to be sent to the Registering Authority, so as to enable them to give effect to the Court's decree by incorporating necessary entries in the documents. 4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is set at liberty to approach the concerned Civil Court, which passed Ext.P2, by filing necessary application to cause the decree to be communicated to the respondent and on obtaining communication from the Civil Court, appropriate steps shall be taken by the respondent so as to cause necessary entries in the relevant records. The writ petition is disposed of as above.