IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30765 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- BABU @ BAVUKUNJU,AGED 45,S/O.MUHAMMED, PERIVELI PADY,KUMMACHERY PARAMBIL,NJALAKAM KARA, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O,THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COCHIN - 682 033. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS SRI.M.A.SHIHAB RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. JOSEPH,AGED 59,S/O.GEORGE,CHOOLAM PARAMBIL HOUSE,UNIVERSITY P.O,KALAMASSERY. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER,THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER,SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,EDAPPALLY. 4. DISTRICT REGISTRAR,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 30765/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3762/1993 DATED 19.08.93 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, EDAPALLY. EXT.P1(A) : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.6042/1993 DATED 17.12.93 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, EDAPALLY. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2627/2005 DATED 28.03.05 OF EDAPPALLY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.11.2000. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23.03.06 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF CORRECTION DEED DATED 27.09.08 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.09.08 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30765 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner executed Exhibit P1 sale deed in favour of the first respondent. However, according to the petitioner, there was a mistake in the survey number of the property and extent of the property. Thereupon, the petitioner and the first respondent wanted to execute correction deed and accordingly, Exhibit P5 correction deed was presented for registration, that was declined to be registered. It is with that grievance, this writ petition has been field. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 3 and 4. In the counter affidavit, they stated that the correction deed presented by the petitioner was defective one in as much as it did not carry the signature of the parties. 3. From the above, it is obvious that the non registration of the documents, according to the respondents was, due to the defects in the documents itself. If that be so, it will be open to the petitioner to present his document of registration, curing the defects pointed out W.P.(C) No. 30765/ 2008 2 along with statutory fee payable, in which case, the 3rd respondent shall deal with the document in accordance with law. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the document along with a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm