IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 OP.No. 10300 of 2003(A) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.C.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.N.R.CHANDRACHOODAMANI, 'SIVAKAMI NIKETHAN' 24/345 NURANI EXTENSION, PALAKKAD-678 004. 2. N.C.KRISHN,S/O.N.R.CHANDRACHOODAMANI, 'SIVAKAMI NIKETHAN' 24/345 NARANI EXTENSION PALAKKAD - 678 004. 3. N.C.JAYARAM, S/O. N.R.CHANDRACHOODAMANI 'SIVAKAMI NIKETHAN', 24/345 NURANI EXTENSION PALAKKAD-678 004. 4. N.C.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN S/O. N.R.CHANDRACHOODAMANI 'SIVAKAMI NIKETHAN' 24/345 NURANI EXTENSION, PALAKKAD-678 004. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAJAMANI, S/O. ANANTHA NARAYANA IYER RESIDING AT 'SANTHI NAGAR' YAKKARA ROAD, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 10300 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners have filed this original petition challenging Ext. P7 order of the 2nd respondent in exercise of his appellate powers under Sections 72, 73, 74 and 75 of the Registration Act. A sale deed in respect of the property jointly owned by all the petitioners together was signed by petitioners 2 to 4. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner refused to sign the same. The 1st respondent, who was the purchaser, presented the same for registration before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the petitioners had not admitted execution of the document. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed an appeal under Section 73 of the Registration Act, on which Ext. P7 order was passed by the 2nd respondent holding that the document had actually been executed insofar as three of them had signed the same. Although the petitioners had earlier filed O.P.No. 9187/1994, since, pursuant to the decision of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent had already registered the document, that original petition was disposed of by Ext. P8 judgment giving liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition challenging the registration also. It is pursuant to the same, this original petition has been filed challenging Ext. P7 order and the registration of the document pursuant to that order. 2. In the course of arguments, counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the remedy of the petitioner now is to file a suit for setting aside the sale itself now that the sale deed has been registered. Arguments were also advanced on merits. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw this original petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file a suit for setting aside the sale deed itself. However, he prays that there may be a direction to exclude the O.P. No. 10300/2003 -: 2 :- period during which the petitioners were bona fide prosecuting this original petition for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation in filing the suit. In the above circumstances, the original petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file a suit for setting aside the sale deed. I also direct that the civil court considering such suit, if filed, shall exclude the period during which this original petition was pending before this Court from the period of limitation for filing that suit. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the civil court in the suit to be filed by the petitioners, if and when filed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.