IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 399 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30483/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------- LIJOY P.VARGHESE,S/O.LATE PARACKAL DEVASSY VARGHESE,AGED 31 YEARS,ADVOCATE,R/A.AT PARACKAL BHVAN,44/2401,FRIENDS LANCE-4, DESHABHIMANI VIA, KALOOR DESOM,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,E.K.M.DISTRICT,KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.LIJOY P.VARGHESE(PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB REGISTRAR, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD,ERNAKULAM DIST 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT GOVERMENT SECREARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 3. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCES,MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT,NEW DELHI-110001 4. LINSON P.VARGHESE,S/O.LATE PARACKAL DEVASSY VARGHESE, AGED 36 YEARS, CIVIL CONTRACTOR R/A.AT PARACKAL BHAVAN,44/2401,FRIENDS LANE-4, DESHABHIMANI VIA,KALOOR DESOM,ELEMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DIST-682017 5. GRACY VARGHESE, W/O.LATE PARACKAL DEVASSY VARGHESE, AGED 60 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/A.PARACKAL BHAVAN,44/2401,FRIENDS LANE-4, DESHABHIMANI VIA,KALOOR DESOM,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. COCHIN-682017 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH P.N. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.399 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 30483 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 O R D E R WP(C) No. 30483/2010 was dismissed by judgment dated 11th of October, 2010 holding that essentially what the petitioner sought was a decree setting aside Ext.P2 sale deed and that such a relief cannot be sought in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this review petition, the main argument raised by the petitioner who appeared in person is that under Section 34 of the Registration Act, the Registrar is obliged to conduct an enquiry into the title of the executant of a document presented for registration. 2. First of all, the judgment does not show that such a contention was urged at the time when the writ petition was heard. Secondly, no legal authority is placed before me to substantiate this contention except the judgment of this Court in Viswan v. Kochanthony (2010(2) KLT S.N.8), the relevant portion of which reads as under: - It is customary in Syrian Christian community to which the petitioner in the R.C.P. belonged R.P.NO.399/11 IN WP(C) NO.30483/10 :2 : that the family house is given to the youngest son and the parents also reside along with him in the family house cared and protected by the youngest son. 3. In my view, the aforesaid customary practice in a community of which the petitioner claims to be a member, does not in any way substantiate the contention raised. That apart, the customary practice in my view will not invalidate a document validly executed. Therefore, I do not find any ground for review of the judgment. Review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp