IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 19394 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VADAKKE ILLATH YAMUNA, D/O.HARIDAS, THAZHEPADIKKAL, HOUSE NO.350, WARD NO.III, P.O.VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR-670 010. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, VALAPATTANAM SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, VALAPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR-670010. 2. ARYAMBALLY NIRMALA, D/O.VASUDEVAN, THAZHEPADIKKAL, P.O.VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR 670 010. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19394 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are sisters-in-law. By way of a settlement of family properties, a release deed, document No.26/2009 was executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner on 23.6.2009. Apparently, the properties scheduled in Ext.P1 were released in favour of the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-. The recitals in the document shows that the consideration has been received by the vendor. 2. It seems that the settlement amongst the parties comprehended several other arrangements. It is alleged that on the same day, 12 documents were executed by the petitioner and her husband in favour of the 2nd respondent and her husband and in turn 10 documents were executed by the 2nd respondent and her husband in favour of the petitioner and her husband. W.P.(C).No.19394 of 2009 :: 2 :: 3. But, on 27.6.2009, the 2nd respondent executed Ext.P4 document purporting to cancel Ext.P1. The reason given for the cancellation, as evidenced by the recitals in Ext.P4 is that the consideration for the release of the properties under Ext.P1 was not received by the vendor in Ext.P1. 4. Thereafter the petitioner wanted to sell the properties, which have been acquired by her under Ext.P1. Ext.P2 document was executed in this behalf and presented before the Sub Registrar. The Sub Registrar took note of Ext.P4 cancellation deed and the objection raised by the 2nd respondent in this regard and declined registration of the same. Hence, this writ petition praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to register the original of Ext.P2, without endorsing any remarks as Ext.P3. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent and a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Apart from executing Ext.P4, the 2nd W.P.(C).No.19394 of 2009 :: 3 :: respondent has also instituted O.S.No.269/09 before the Sub Court, Thalassery, inter alia, seeking to get Ext.P1 avoided. An application for a temporary injunction seeking to restrain the petitioner herein from exercising any rights as the owner of the plaint schedule property has also been filed. The same is pending. 6. After the matter was heard for some time, on a suggestion, the petitioner has deposited Rs.2,70,000/- in O.S.No.269/09 in an attempt to defend the allegation made by the 2nd respondent that notwithstanding the recital in Ext.P1 regarding the receipt of consideration, the vendor under Ext.P1 has actually not received such amount. 7. I heard learned counsel on both sides. 8. The only dispute germane for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Sub Registrar can refuse to register the original of Ext.P2. It is true that the 2nd respondent has instituted a suit for avoiding Ext.P1 document. But Ext.P1 document can be declared W.P.(C).No.19394 of 2009 :: 4 :: to be null and void only by a civil court adjudicating the issue. As on today, Ext.P1 operates as a conveyance of the title of the properties mentioned therein in favour of the petitioner and it is on the strength of Ext.P1 that the vendee therein, the petitioner herein has executed Ext.P2. If the civil court adjudicates Ext.P1 as null and void and holds that it is liable to be avoided, any further conveyance executed by the assignee in Ext.P1 will also be rendered ineffectual. 9. So also, Ext.P4, which is a unilateral document by the 2nd respondent by itself would not be sufficient to render the vendee under Ext.P1 incapable of taking such steps as are available to him/her, in law pursuant thereto. As far as the Sub Registrar is concerned, there is a document of conveyance conveying the properties scheduled in Ext.P1. The original of Ext.P2 was presented for registration. If that be so, the vendee under Ext.P1 is competent to execute further documents in relation to the same. I also make W.P.(C).No.19394 of 2009 :: 5 :: it clear that I make these observations only in the context of the limited jurisdiction that is available to the Sub Registrar before whom the document is stated to have been executed by a person competent, on the strength of another conveyance executed by the objector herself and registered by the same authority, in accordance with law. I make it clear that these observations obviously would not, in any manner, be relevant in a civil suit instituted by the 2nd respondent for avoiding Ext.P1. Those are matters to be adjudicated by the civil court, which has the exclusive jurisdiction to do so. But as far as the Sub Registrar is concerned, unless there are other factors preventing him from accepting any document, which is duly presented for registration, he cannot decline to do so. 10. In the result, it is ordered that if the original of Ext.P2 is presented before the 1st respondent for registration, he shall proceed to register the same, subject to the compliance of the formalities. I make it W.P.(C).No.19394 of 2009 :: 6 :: clear that registration of the document, if presented by the petitioner, will not act in derogation from the contentions of the 2nd respondent herein in O.S.No.269/09 before the Sub Court, Thalassery. The 2nd respondent would also, in such circumstances, be entitled to take up a contention that the conveyance, which is now proposed to be presented for registration by the petitioner, is hit by the rule of lis pendens. The petitioner shall independently intimate the pendency of O.S.No.269/09 to her prospective purchaser and despatch of such intimation shall also be produced before the Sub Registrar. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge