IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2010 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14354 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.120/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMABHAI PILLAI ,D/O.BHARATHI PILLAI ILLIKULATHU VEEDU, MEMANA MURI, OCHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT,OCHIRA,KOLLAM DISTRICT 2. SMT. SHOBHANA MANI, D/O.BHARATHI PILLAI MOHANA VILASATHU VEEDU,KANDALOOR VILLAGE KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, KAYAMKULAM. 3. SMT.JANCY RANI @ OMANAKUTTAN, D/O.BHARATHI PILLAI, PANNIVIZHA PARAMESWARA VEEDU OTHARA MURI ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. 4. SMT. SAVITHRI PILLAI, D/O.BHARATHI PILLAI,ILLIKULATHU SAVITHRI MANDIRAM MEMANA MURI, OCHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM GOVT. PLEADER SMT.REKHA C. NAIR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Writ petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.120 of 2010 of the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally seeks a direction to respondent No.1, Sub Registrar to consider Ext.P4, petition filed by petitioner not to register the document if presented by respondent Nos.2 to 4 concerning the suit property. Petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are children of the late Sukumara Pillai and Bharathi Pillai who owned large extent of properties including the suit property. It is the case of the petitioner that Sukumara Pillai had drafted a Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of petitioner but unfortunately it could not be executed. While so, respondent Nos.2 to 4 who are sisters of the petitioner took the petitioner and their mother to the office of Sub Registrar (respondent No.1) and forcibly got a settlement deed executed. Challenging the validity of that settlement deed petitioner has filed O.S.No.120 of 2010. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are trying to alienate the suit property. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 apprehending that petitioner might file application for injunction have filed a caveat before the District Court, Kollam (Exts.P3 and P3(a)). In the above circumstances petitioner has filed Ext.P4, petition before the Sub Registrar. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that unless a direction is issued to respondent No.1 not to register the document produced by respondent Nos.2 to 4 the document will be registered and that will affect right of petitioner. I am afraid, no such direction can be issued to respondent No.1 since a 2 document validly executed if presented for registration before the registering authority having jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Registration Act the Registrar concerned cannot refuse to register the same. This principle has been upheld by this Court in Sulabha v. Suseela (2008 (4) KLT 938) and Selvam v. State of Kerala (2010 (1 KLT 508). Therefore no such direction could be issued. 3. Assuming that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed caveat before the District Court, Kollam apprehending that petitioner might prefer application for injunction against alienation, that need not have deterred petitioner from approaching the court concerned for appropriate reliefs in the pending suit. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 19 of the Civil Courts Act gives authority to the Vacation Judge to call for records of the pending suit and pass pass appropriate orders. The proper course open to the petitioner is to avail that remedy as provided under law. With the above observation, Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks