IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6527 of 2009(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. E.N.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.E.K.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI,AGED 64 YEARS, EDAMANA ILLAM, EDANADU.PO,PALA VIA, KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN-686574. 2. JISHNU.V.DEV,S/O.E.N.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI,AGED 28 YRS,EDAMANA ILLAM,EDANADU.PO, PALA VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686574. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SUB-REGISTRAR,SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 6527 OF 2009 (I) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners presented the original of Ext.P2 settlement deed dated 4/4/2008 for registration and that was refused to be registered on the ground that Ext.P1, on the basis of which the title was devolved on him, was not produced when Ext.P2 document was presented for registration. 2. The refusal was called in by the petitioner by filing W.P. (C) No.18452/2008. That writ petition was filed on 18/6/2008 and was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 9/2/2009 directing that it will be open to the petitioner to produce the settlement deed for registration along with Ext.P1 Will and directing the 3rd respondent to examine the same and deal with the request of the petitioner for registration in accordance with law. 3. Petitioner submits that he obtained a certified copy of judgment on 19/2/2009 and produced the original of Ext.P2 settlement deed along with Ext.P1 Will before the 3rd respondent on 24/2/2009. It is now stated that the document is refused to be registered, as according to the respondents, the period prescribed WPC 6527/09 :2 : under Section 23 of the Registration Act, and the extended period as permissible under Section 25 of the said Act have expired. While the petitioner claims that the period spent by him for litigation before this Court namely 18/6/2008 to 19/2/2009, when he obtained a certified copy of the judgment should be excluded, learned Government Pleader seeks to justify the refusal relying on Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act and contending that by the time the document was presented, the time had expired. 2. As already noticed, according to the petitioner, the reason for refusal on the part of the 3rd respondent is that the period as prescribed under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act for presentation of the document had expired when the document was presented. On the respondents refusing to register Ext.P2 when it was initially presented for registration, petitioner approached this Court on 18/6/2008 by filing W.P.(C) No.18452/2008 and succeeded only by Ext.P3 judgment rendered on 9/2/2009, and certified copy of the judgment was obtained only on 19/2/2009. Therefore, legally the petitioner is entitled to have the aforesaid period excluded while reckoning the permissible period as otherwise, for no fault of the petitioner, he WPC 6527/09 :3 : will be loosing the benefit of the judgment. 3. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to present the original of Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 will before the 3rd respondent for registration, in which case, for the period of determining the validity of the stamp paper, the period will be reckoned excluding the period from 18/6/2008 to 19/2/2009, when the petitioner obtained certified copy of the judgment. However, it is directed that if the initial period in excess of the period permitted in Section 23 of the Registration Act, the registration of the document will be subject to the provisions contained in Rule 44 of the Registration Rules, Kerala. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp