Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943 PETITIONERS:
1 NELSON V V., AGED 45 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS PADAYATTI VALLATHUKARAN HOUSE, MELUR VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, VELUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 311. 2 BABY, AGED 73 YEARS W/O. ANTHONI, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS THEKANMACHAMPILLI HOUSE, MELUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 683. 3 GINI,AGED 47 YEARS W/O. ANTO, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS AREEKADAN HOUSE, MELUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 683. 4 ANTO V G., AGED 61 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS PADAYATTIVALLATHUKARAN HOUSE, MELUR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 311. BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 001. 2 THE SUB REGISTRAR, KALLETTUMKARA SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, KALLETTUMKARA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 683. 3 FRACNIS, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. OUSEPUNNI, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS CHAKALAKAL HOUSE, POYYAPULIPARAMBU DESOM, POYYA P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 733. 4 SHAIJA FRANCIS, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. FRANCIS, CHAKALAKAL HOUSE, POYYAPULI PARAMBU DESOM, POYYA P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK , THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 733. 5 GIFFIN FRANCIS, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. FRANCIS, CHAKALAKAL HOUSE, POYYAPULI PARAMBU DESOM, POYYA P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 733. 6 GENISH FRANCIS, AGED 19 YEARS D/O. FRANCIS, CHAKALAKAL HOUSE, POYYAPULI PARAMBU DESOM, POYYA P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 733.
SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent - Sub Registrar to verify the covenants in Exts.P1 to P8 and to conclude that their properties
covered by it are not covered by Ext.P4 order
of attachment of a competent Civil Court.
2. The petitioners explain that Ext.P4
makes it indubitably clear that only a certain portion in Sy.No.1650 is under attachment and that, going by the various documents produced on record, they will be able to convince the said Authority that their property, covered by Ext.P1, does not come within its ambit.
3. The petitioners allege that however, without verifying any of these aspects, the 2nd respondent is refusing to delete the wrong entry made against their property on the basis of Ext.P4 order of attachment.
4. I have heard Sri.G.Sreekumar Chelur - learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Surya Binoy - learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
5. Smt.Surya Binoy pointed out that, as per Ext.P4 order of attachment, the survey number shown is 1650 and it takes in an extent of 0.3320 hectors of land. She submitted that, therefore, the Sub Registrar was justifiably
not in a position to verify whether the property of the petitioners covered by Ext.P1 is excluded from the same for otherwise. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
6. Even when I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore, the fact remains
that, before taking a decision, the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar is certainly enjoined to make an appropriate enquiry based on the documents, particularly the descriptions of the
boundaries therein and to verify whether the property of the petitioners is included in Ext.P4 attachment. To that extent, I am certain that the reliefs sought for by
Sri.G.Sreekumar Chelur must be acceded to.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the petitioners to mark appearance before the 2nd respondent - Sub Registrar at 11 A.M. on 24.11.2021, with all the documents in their possession including those which are produced before this Court; in which event, the said Authority will either hear them on that day or fix another convenient date for hearing and then proceed to record their version and to examine all the documents produced by them and then verify whether the property covered by Ext.P1 is within the ambit of Ext.P4 order of attachment or otherwise. Needless to say, while the afore exercise is completed, the Sub Registrar will consider the documents with respect to their boundary and the survey numbers and then complete proceedings as ordered above. The afore exercise shall be completed by the Sub Registrar as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/12/11/2021 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22238/2021 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO. O IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO. O. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O S NO. 534 OF 18 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY FILED DATED 8.8.18. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED AS I A
NO. 1882 OF 18 IN O S NO. 534 OF 18 APPLICATION FILED DATED 9.8.18 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO. 922 OF 03 DATED 12.3.03 OF THE KALLETTUMKARA S R O . Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO. 3303 OF 07 DATED 7.7.07 OF THE KALLETTUMKARA S R O. Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. 6851 OF 19 DATED 15.5.19 OF THE KALLETTUMKARA S R O. Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IN O S NO. 534 OF 18 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY DATED 3.12.20.