JUDGMENT : (C. Jayachandran, J.) Dated, this the 25th day of July, 2024 The subject matter of both these Writ Petitions is similar and both seek to quash Ext.P3 memos issued by the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar refusing to register sale deeds, produced as Ext.P2 in both the Writ Petitions. 2. Registration is refused vide Ext.P3 memo, on the premise that the petitioner company, the vendor in Ext.P2 sale deeds, has only possessory rights over the property sought to be transferred. The 1st petitioner company has neither the ownership, nor the jenmom rights over that property. Ext.P3 - after referring to various aspects as to whether the petitioner company can be treated as a 'tenant' and whether the petitioner could prescribe its title by adverse possession etc - ultimately finds that the Managing Director representing the petitioner company has no right to transfer the ownership rights and refused registration, accordingly. 3. Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.P.B.Subramanyan on behalf of the petitioners; Sri.M.H.Hanil Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) on behalf of respondents 1 to 5; and Sri.Santheep Ankarath on behalf of additional respondent no.6. Perused the records. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aspects, which are seen referred to in Ext.P3 memo, as regards the competence of the 1st petitioner company to convey the ownership rights etc., are not matters, over which, the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar can probe and issue directions. Extraneous matters, beyond the competence and jurisdiction, have been considered to refuse the registration of sale deeds, marked as Ext.P2 in the Writ Petitions. Ext.P3 memo, therefore, cannot stand the test of law and hence, liable to be set aside, is the submission. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that, part of the large extent property which belonged to the petitioner company was earlier presented for registration, in which occasion also, a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Revenue Authorities clarifying, whether the land in question is exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, was insisted upon. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No.18155/2021 directed registration of the document and the consequent transfer of registry, without insisting for the N.O.C. Learned Senior Counsel would point out that Exts.P6 to P9 were documents of a similar nature, which were registered without any demur on the question of title. Therefore, the present objection vide Ext.P3 memos are illegal and unsustainable, is the final submission. Therefore, the present objection vide Ext.P3 memos are illegal and unsustainable, is the final submission. 5. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent, who was impleaded vide orders in I.A.No.1/2024, would submit that the 6th respondent is the Receiver appointed for managing the estate of Nilambur Kovilakam in the suit, O.S.No.22/1961 of the Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner company has no title over the property sought to be conveyed. Ext.P4 document, under which, the 1st petitioner claims title would clearly indicate that the ownership of Nilambur estate is presently under the management of the 6th respondent. Exts.P6 to P9 documents were executed misrepresenting the facts and misleading this Court, as well as, the office of the Sub Registrar. Inasmuch as the 1st Petitioner has no right to execute Ext.P2 documents, the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar is well within his limits in refusing registration thereof. As regards the right of the Registrar to refuse registration, learned counsel would rely upon the following judgments of this Court: i) Noble John v. State of Kerala [ 2010 (3) KLT 941 ]. ii) Divakaran v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2016 (5) KHC 49 ]. iii) Santhosh Antonio S.Netto v. Joshy Thomas and Others [ 2020 (3) KHC 278 (DB)]. 6. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit in both the Writ Petitions, contending inter alia that, Nilambur Kovilakam is the owner of the property sought to be transferred, which was leased out to the 1st petitioner company for a period of 12 years, which period expired in the year 1962. The recital in the sale deeds that the petitioner company had 'verumpattam right' is wrong and the possessory right of the company is based on a conditional lease of the year 1950, wherein, the conditions of lease is clearly mentioned. The petitioner company only had possessory rights and the lease, after its expiry on 12.04.1962, has not been renewed. According to the 4th respondent, the ownership of the property got legally vested with the Nilambur Kovilakam upon the expiry of the lease period, and that, the same is liable to be vested with the Government, if the family of the Kovilakam has no legal heirs. The 1st petitioner company cannot therefore transfer the ownership of the property, is the contention of the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar. 7. The 1st petitioner company cannot therefore transfer the ownership of the property, is the contention of the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar. 7. In answer to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the additional 6th respondent, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments of this Court: i) Eshaque v. Sub Registrar [2002 KHC 74]. ii) Sumathi and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2018 (5) KHC 586 ]. iii) Balachandran v. Sub Registrar [2023 KHC 9122]. 8. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that even going by the dictum in Noble John (supra), refusal of registration is possible, only if the person purporting to execute the document is not the person entitled to the property as on the date of execution and the same should be clear on a cursory enquiry. In other words, the incompetence should be writ large, manifested by merely looking at the document and the prior deeds. Even if that yardstick is applied, the instant facts would not fall under the category, as made mention of in Noble John (supra). Learned Senior Counsel would elaborate that refusal of registration in the instant facts is based on the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar's understanding of law, as regards the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and its legal impact, which exercise is not sanctioned by Noble John (supra). In Divakaran (supra), reliance was placed on Noble John (supra) and the facts dealt with in that case will not aid the 6th respondent in any manner. In Divakaran (supra), the issue was with respect to registration of a settlement deed by one person in respect of a property, over which, as many as 56 persons were co-owners based on a partition deed. Learned Senior Counsel would thus seek the Writ Petitions to be allowed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds considerable merit in the contentions urged in these Writ Petitions. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, registration of sale deeds marked as Ext.P2 in the Writ Petitions is not based on any illegality or incompetence, which is decipherable from a mere look at Ext.P2 sale deeds. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, registration of sale deeds marked as Ext.P2 in the Writ Petitions is not based on any illegality or incompetence, which is decipherable from a mere look at Ext.P2 sale deeds. Instead, it is based on the alleged legal premise that, what has been executed in favour of the petitioner company was not a verumpattam lease, but was, infact, a conditional lease, circumscribed by the conditions specified in the lease deed. Ext.P4, again, is based on the premise that the said lease arrangement expired in the year 1962, whereafter, the petitioner company cannot have any ownership over the property sought to be conveyed, but had only possessory rights. Further, Ext.P3 takes into account a legal premise that upon the expiry of the lease, the ownership of the property will revert back to the Nilambur Kovilakam. Ext.P3 even goes to the extent of saying that nonrenewal of the lease has visited the Government with financial consequences. Still further, Ext.P3 states that the petitioner company cannot be treated as a 'tenant' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that the company cannot prescribe its title by adverse possession. It is based on the above referred premises that registration of Ext.P2 sale deeds have been refused. 10. This Court is afraid, whether the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar has completely exceeded and overlooked its limited jurisdiction under the Registration Act. It goes without saying that the registration of the documents does not vouch the title in respect of the property being conveyed to the purchaser. Nor does the Sub Registrar, by his official act of registration, expressly or impliedly represents the conveyance of a valid title unto the purchaser. It is for the purchaser to satisfy the availability of a valid title of the property, which is sought to be purchased. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner company had only possessory rights, it cannot be held that such rights cannot be transferred. Nor could the registration of a sale deed be refused, on the premise that the executant has no ownership, but only possession over the property conveyed. 11. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner company had only possessory rights, it cannot be held that such rights cannot be transferred. Nor could the registration of a sale deed be refused, on the premise that the executant has no ownership, but only possession over the property conveyed. 11. Coming to Noble John (supra), this Court endorse the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that the reasons, which weighed the Sub Registrar in Ext.P4, are not reasons, which are decipherable from a cursory enquiry, or for that matter, a mere look of the documents concerned. The incompetence of the executant should be of a fundamental nature, which goes to the root of the matter and should be writ large, manifested from the face of the record/document. The reasons in Ext.P3 are, as already referred above, based on legal premises, especially within the contours of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and its legal consequences. Needless to say that the Sub Registrar is not a competent person to conclude and decide such issues and to refuse registration on such basis. It is worthwhile in this regard to take stock of the fact that no proceeding, whatsoever, has been initiated so far by any member of the Nilambur Kovilakam, or for that matter, by the additional 6th respondent herein, for recovery of the properties, which is sought to be conveyed. 12. In the above referred circumstances, this court is of the opinion that Ext.P3 memos issued in both the Writ Petitions cannot be sustained. The same are accordingly set aside. 13. Resultantly, these Writ Petitions are allowed and there will be a direction to the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar to register the sale deeds, produced as Ext.P2 in these Writ Petitions, provided the same answers other requirements under the Registration Act and the Stamp Act.