IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No.34149 of 2008 (M) ---------------------------------- OS.2/1980 of ADDL. SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- BABU, S/O.PERACHOTTY, MANNUKAVIL, PERUMBAVOOR KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KOCHAYYAPPAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, THATTATHU VEEDU,ANGAMALY. 2. SUB REGISTRAR, O/O.THE SUB REGISTRAR ANGAMALY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.34149 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the decree holder in O.S.2/980 on the file of the Sub Court, Paravur, He obtained a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell the scheduled property in his favour. In execution, document was executed by court and forwarded for registration. It is submitted that the Sub Registrar has refused registration on the ground that for registration of the document measurement as per torrence system is required as per registration rules. Thereupon, the decree holder vide Ext.P3 (E.A.360/01 in E.P.939/94) sought for a direction being issued by the court for registration of the document. The execution court vide Ext.P4 order dismissed the said E.A. holding that the court has no W. P. C. No.34149 of 2008 -2- power to ask the Sub Registrar to skip the registration formalities. Against the said order, decree holder filed C.R.P.3208/01 before this Court and this Court vide order in C.R.P.3208/01 dt.7th June, 2006 disposed of the C.R.P on the following lines:- “The suit for specific performance, instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner was decreed and when the document was sent to the Registrar for Registration, the Registrar seems to have raised an objection that the property has to be measured as per torrence system. But the court below did not enter a finding as to whether the measurement of the property as per torrence system is a requirement as per the Registration Rules without which it proceeded to hold that there is no power vested in the court to ask the Sub Registrar to skip the registration formalities. In the absence of any finding as to whether such measurement in torrence system is required under law, further findings has no leg to stand. The observation made therefore, does not exist. The order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur, who shall hear E.A.360/2001 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after entering a finding as to whether measurement as per torrence system is required as per the Registration Rules. If the finding is that there is no such requirement, then the Sub Court shall issue necessary direction to the Registrar to register the document. The parties shall appear before the court below on 4th July, 2006.” W. P. C. No.34149 of 2008 -3- 2. Thus as per the directions in the above order in C.R.P the decree holder was to enlighten the court below with reference to the registration rules as to whether measurement as per torrence system is required for registration of a document. It was also observed that if the finding is that there is no such requirement, then the execution court shall issue necessary directions to the Registrar to register the documents. The parties were also directed to appear in the court below on 04/07/06. The petitioner has no case that he appeared before the execution court through lawyer and argued the matter before the execution court to enlighten the court that torrence system of measurement is not required for registration of document or that the court below refused to hear his submissions and pass any order entering W. P. C. No.34149 of 2008 -4- findings as directed by this Court in Ext.P5 order. On the other hand, the petitioner has come up before this Court with this Writ Petition highlighting the grievance that the petitioner has not been able either to get the registration done or get the property delivered to him even after lapse of 19 years of the decree and 8 years of execution of the document. True, the grievance is genuine. I cannot but observe that it is on account of the inefficiency of his lawyer to enlighten the court with reference to the registration rules that torrent system of measurement is not required for registration of document that the registration could not be had or a direction obtained in that behalf from the court in compliance with the direction of this Court in Ext.P5 order. There is no whisper in this Writ Petition as to what happened from W. P. C. No.34149 of 2008 -5- 04/07/06 till this day before the execution court in E.P.939/94 in O.S.2/1980, despite lapse of more than two years. Probably on account of not taking steps, the E.P must have been dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to enlighten me as to whether the E.P. is pending before the execution court at present or as to what happened to the execution petition ever after 04/07/06, the date on which the parties were directed to appear in the court below vide Ext.P5 order in C.R.P.3208/01. The counsel who appears before me is asked as to which is the rule in the registration rules which deals with requirement of measurements as per torrence system to have a document registered, she is unable to enlighten me and does not even offer to look up and submit. W. P. C. No.34149 of 2008 -6- 3. In the result, I have no other go but to dispose of this Writ Petition observing however that the remedy is available from the execution court itself. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-