IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31128 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- CHAKKANTAKATH KAYYALAYIL SULAIKA, D/O.KOYAKKUNHIYAKATH PADINJARE OTTAYIL MUHAMMED, NIRAMARUTHUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31128 OF 2010 (M) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that her family members intend to execute a release deed in her favour. Petitioner states that as and when the document is presented to the 3rd respondent, the same should be registered applying the provisions of Section 48 (a) of the Kerala Stamp Act and not applying the provisions of Schedule 21 and 22. 2. In my view, this writ petition is premature and the question of the petitioner being aggrieved by the actions of the 3rd respondent can arise only after the document is executed and presented for registration. Therefore, at this stage, there arise no question of adjudication of the grievance. Writ petition is dismissed as premature. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp