IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10533 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHEESA.K., S/O. K.N.SEKHARAN, CHOORI HOUSE, BATTAMBARA, RAMDAS NAGAR, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. PIN-671125. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KASARAGODE. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, KASARAGODE. 4. K.A.ABDULLA, S/O. K.A.KUNHAMMED HAJI, BUSINESS, CHETTUMINKUZHI, MADHUR VILLAGE, P.O.HIDAYATH NAGAR, PIN-671123, KASARAGODE DIST. 5. SHAKKEENA @ RAZEENA, W/O. MANSOOR & D/O. KUNHALI, KADAVATH, THALANGARA VILLAGE & P.O., KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGODE. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).10533/2011 ....................... Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who obtained the property involved herein from the fourth respondent as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 3.11.2010, was made to reconvey the same to the fourth respondent as per yet another deed dated 15.3.2011. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was made to execute such a subsequent sale deed without obtaining any sale consideration, but on the misrepresentation made by the fourth respondent, and that the petitioner has been virtually cheated. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent (the concerned Sub Registrar), who registered both the deeds, is liable to cancel the deed executed in favour of the fourth respondent on 15.3.2011 and is liable to initiate appropriate proceedings in respect of the offence stated as committed by the fourth respondent. It is with this grievance that the petitioner has approached this Court W.P.(C).10533/2011 2 by filing the present writ petition seeking for a direction to be given to the third respondent to take action on Ext.P3, cancel the sale deed dated 15.3.2011 executed and registered in favour of the fourth respondent and to take such other steps. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Going through the materials produced, it is evident that the petitioner has already executed a sale deed dated 15.3.2011 in favour of the fourth respondent. The circumstances under which such conveyance was effected by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the transaction was not a genuine one and if the same is not supported by valid sale consideration, the matter is to be considered by the competent Civil Court and it is for the petitioner to establish his rights raising appropriate pleadings and adducing evidence. That apart, if at all the fourth respondent has committed any offence, it is open for the petitioner to cause appropriate W.P.(C).10533/2011 3 proceedings to be initiated against the parties concerned; by resorting to such other appropriate remedy before the appropriate forums. In such circumstances, interference is declined. Writ petition is dismissed, however reserving rights and liberties as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs