IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32840 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOY,S/O.JOSEPH,PARAYARUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THOTTAPPADI,KALLAMALA,AGALI,MANNARKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. SUB REGISTRAR,SRO,AGALI. 2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 32840 OF 2010(D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is in possession of a property having an extent of one acre and 30 cents in Sy. No.754/3 of Kallamala village by virtue of settlement deed registered as document No.814 of the Agli Sub Registry in 1991. Thereafter the petitioner executed Ext.P1 settlement deed settling 40.47 ares in favour of his wife. When the said document was presented for registration, the Sub Registrar declined to register the document and by Ext.P2, the petitioner has been informed that his father, who executed the settlement deed in his favour, subsequently executed document No.1049/06 canceling the settlement deed,. Against Ext.P2 petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent and the appeal was rejected by Ext.P4. It is in theses circumstance the writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P4 and seeking a direction for registration of the document. 2. In my view, the issue canvassed by the petitioner is fully covered by Rule 67 of the Registration Rules (Kerala ) which reads as WPC.No. 32840/2010 :2 : under. “ It forms no part of a Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:- (a) That the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be : (b) That the document is forged. (c). That the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity; (d) That the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration: or (e) That the executing pay is minor or an idiot or a lunatic.” 3. Thus it is obvious that it is not the Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of the document presented for registration. A reading of Ext.P2 does not show that any of the grounds mentioned in clause (a) to (e) of Rule 67 are invoked in the order to decline registration. If that be so Ext.P2 and P4 are totally unsustainable and are quashed. WPC.No. 32840/2010 :3 : Therefore quashing Exts.P2 and Ext. P4 and directing the first respondent to register Ext.P1 document, when presented, the writ petition is disposed of . (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/