IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 9884 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. JOSEPH N.JOSE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, NJANAKKAL HOUSE, KAKKANAD KARAYIL, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. LINCY, W/O.JAIN, MALAMEL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. DEPUTY REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 011. 4. SUB REGISTRAR, TRIKKAKARA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, NEAR BUS STAND, TRIKKAKARA-682 028. 5. SREEKALA J.D, SANTHI NIKETHAN, KNERA-57, ASOKA ROAD, KALOOR POST, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 017. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.JOSEPH GEORGE. R5 BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA, SMT.VINEETHA B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 9884 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20/07/2010 UNDER SECTION 52(B) OF THE ACT & RULE 114 RULES ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/08/2010 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 28/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 09/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.65 DATED 20/07/2010 UNDER SECTION 52(B) OF THE ACT & RULE 114 RULES ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE REPORT AND EXPLANATION DATED 17/09/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30/08/2010, ALONG WITH THE ENVELOPE WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF POST OFFICE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 9884 of 2011 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioners and their mother executed a partition deed on 20.07.2010. The document was presented before the fourth respondent for registration and was registered as document No.1571/2010. It is also stated that along with the original, a duplicate copy of the document was also registered. Petitioners say that they were asked to collect the registered original document and the duplicate after four days. It is the case of the first petitioner that the second petitioner was authorised to collect the document and that he went to the office of the fourth respondent on several occasions and was informed that the document was collected by the first petitioner on the date of registration itself. Petitioners contend that the document was never returned. They made several complaints before respondents 1 to 3. On receipt of the complaints also they W.P.(C) No.9884/2011 : 2 : were informed that since the 1st petitioner had already collected the original document on the date of registration itself, nothing further could be done. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to return the original document No.1571/2010 from the fourth respondent's office along with the duplicate. 2. Fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit for herself and on behalf of the fourth respondent. Contention raised by the fifth respondent is that the document was returned to the first petitioner on 20.07.2010 itself. Relying on Ext.P6 and other documents, while the petitioners contend that the documents were never returned, the fifth respondent contends otherwise. Although this is a disputed question of fact, the fifth respondent also concedes that the original document is not available in the office. Thus, it is obvious that the original document is missing and is untraceable and that the duplicate of the document duly registered is still available W.P.(C) No.9884/2011 : 3 : in the office of the fourth respondent. 3. Therefore, to give a quietus to the dispute, I direct that it will be open to the petitioners to collect the duplicate of document No.1571/2010 from the office of the fourth respondent and that in the facts of this case, the said duplicate document will be treated as original for all purposes. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/14/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge