IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12333 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MATHAI,AGED 26 YEARS,S/O.JOHN, CHATHOTH HOUSE,MANKARA ATTIPARAMBU DESOM, ENKAKKAD,TALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,PALAKKAD. 2. SUB REGISTRAR,OTTAPPALAM. 3. SOBHANA,W/O.VIJAYAN,PULLAKKIL HOUSE, CHEKKOTTUPALAM DESOM,TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.12333 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of 1 Acre and 52 cents of property under Ext.P1 sale deed No.942 dated 3.3.2005. It seems that the vendor of the property, who was working abroad, had earlier executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his father one Ayyappan under document No.1091/85 of Ottapalam Sub Registry. 2. The petitioner contends that, in spite of the fact that 1 Acre and 52 cents was assigned in his favour under Ext.P1, the Power of Attorney holder of the vendor of the petitioner, purported to execute a sale deed (Ext.P4) in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of 40 cents out of the land conveyed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner further contends that the vendee under Ext.P4 thereupon proposed to mortgage the said property for availing a loan. According to the petitioner, he has got jenmam right over the property under Ext.P1. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before respondents 1 and 2 for making necessary corrections in W.P.(C).No.12333 of 2009 :: 2 :: the revenue records. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 and take appropriate action. 2. If the petitioner is entitled to assert title in respect of the entirety of the property covered by Ext.P1, then he is entitled to assert such title against all persons concerned. If he has any grievance that a rival title is obtained by some other person with regard to a portion of the property, his remedy lies before the Civil Court. He is entitled to approach the Civil Court. I do not think, this is a matter, which should engage the attention of the District Registrar. Reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, if there is any cause of action, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge