IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH APRIL 2009 / 4TH VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12749 of 2009(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- REJU JOY, S/O.R.V.JOY, C-2, 'PENTA PEARL', SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR 682 017. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12749 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the purchaser of certain extent of undivided share in 36.855 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.1986 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk as per Ext.P1 sale deed. Though the petitioner approached the first respondent for registration of the sale deed under Section 35 read with 58 of the Registration Act, the first respondent refused to register the sale deed. According to the petitioner, the property which he purchased is only an undivided interest in the land with a right to built up area with petitioner's own funds and he had furnished all required details for the registration of sale deed. According to the petitioner, the approach of the first respondent insisting the petitioner to pay stamp duty for the built up portion, are highly illegal and arbitrary. The suggestion in Ext.P2 is highly arbitrary and unwarranted and unsustainable. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C) No.12749 of 2009 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the first respondent being a registering authority is not expected to enquire and ascertain the disputed questions and the market value. It is also the case of the petitioner that even under Section 68, the Registrar cannot refuse to register a document when it is presented for registration. In support of the above position, the learned counsel cited several decisions. In another occasion, this court in an identical case directed the first respondent to accept the original of the sale deed and take action for registration. 4. This court in the decisions reported in Periyar Real Estates Vs. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 806) and All Kerala Document Writers and Scribes Association Vs. State of Kerala (2005(3) KLT 234) has held that first respondent is bound to accept the original document and to take necessary steps for the registration and further action in terms of the relevant provisions contained in the Registration Act and the Kerala Stamp Act. In the light of the above decisions and in view of Ext.P3(a) judgment, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 and directing the first W.P.(C) No.12749 of 2009 3 respondent to accept the original of Ext.P1 and take action for its registration and also further action in terms of the provisions contained in the Registration Act. 5. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE pac