IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24811 of 2008(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANIAMMA XAVIER, MAGADAPPALY RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL, MATTAKKATTU, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., CHANGANCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 6. LEELAMMA W/O KUNJACHI, KUTTANMPEROOR, CHAKKALACKAL, RUBY NAGAR P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 7. GRACY, W/O JACOB, CHEMPUTHARAYIL HOUSE, MAMPUZHAKKARY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 8. THANKAMMA THOMAS, W/O THOMAS, MEKKATTU HOUSE, ANAKALLU P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. 9. ACHAMMA ALEXANDER, W/O K.C. ALEXANDER, KATTAKAYAM HOUSE, PALLICHIRA, KUMARAKAM NORTH. WP(C).No. 24811 of 2008(D) -2- 10. MARIYAMMA KURIAKOSE, W/O KURIAKOSE, KUNNATHU HOUSE,KANCHIYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 11. K.V. MATHEW, W/O VARKEY, KOTTATTU HOUSE, KANCHIYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 12. K.V. JOSEPH, S/O VARKEY, KOTTATTU HOUSE, KUTTAMPEROOR, CHAKKALACKAL, RUBY NAGAR P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 13. MERCY JOSEPH, W/O JOSEPH, MAKKIL HOUSE, EZHUKUMVAYAL. 14. TONY JACOB, CHEMPUTHARA HOUSE, MAMPUZHAKARY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 15. ACHAMMA @ ROSE JOSEPH, PALATHINKAL HOUSE T.C. 28/1962, SHREEKANDESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 16. SOSHAMMA @ ROSEKUTTY, THAIKALATHIL HOUSE, NEAR VIKAS AUDITORIUM, SHORNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PREMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.24811 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a party to a suit for letters of administration before the District Judge, Kottayam, namely; O.S. No.9/96. In that suit Ext.P2 judgment was passed granting letters of administration to the 8th respondent herein. But it has been stated in Ext.P2 that letters of administration shall be issued to the 8th respondent only after the proper valuation is made and court fee thereon paid. The petitioner's contention in this writ petition is that the 8th respondent is now taking steps to execute documents as if they are entitled to deal with the properties involved in the letters of administration case without paying court fee as directed in Ext.P2 judgment. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd and 5th respondents to consider and dispose of Exhibits-P5 and P8 respectively after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. b) to declare that the properties involved in Exhibit.P2 judgment cannot be alienated or letters of administration issued without paying Court Fees as directed in Exhibit-P2 judgment.” 2. Essentially what the petitioner wants is a direction to the Sub Registrar not to register documents executed in respect of the W.P(C)No.24811 of 2008 - 2 - properties in question by the 6th petitioner in Ext.P2 on the ground that the court fee has not been paid for issue of letters of administration. I am of opinion that this court cannot direct the Sub Registrar not to register document presented before him. In any event the Sub Registrar is perfectly competent to consider whether a document presented before him for registration is registrable or not. If the petitioner's contention is that no proper court fee has been paid pursuant to Ext.P2, his remedy lies in approaching the court which passed Ext.P2 judgment. Further if any document is registered at the instance of the 6th respondent without issue of letter of administration, the remedy of the petitioner lies in challenging such document in an appropriate suit. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner in this writ petition and accordingly without prejudice to his remedies as above, the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs