High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-09-14Writ petition disposed of with partial relief; ...

George P.O. and Mary Ouseph and Annie Isaac v. Sub Registrar, Kuruppampady and Village Officer, Asamannoor

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 9143 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dev — an Ramachandran, J.
Judgment Date: 2021-09-14
Court Decision / Holding: Quashed Exts. P14 and P15; directed the Village Officer, Asamannoor, to hear the petitioners and decide whether any action is required with respect to Possession Certificate bearing No. 50681768, issued earlier. The petitioners may produce all relevant documents. The Village Officer will issue an appropriate order within two weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment. Once such an order is issued, the Sub Registrar should consider the registration of Ext. P13, noting that it does not transfer property in a technical sense but releases rights in favor of the 1st petitioner. The Sub Registrar must complete the action within two weeks of the petitioners approaching him as directed. The court thus orders a remediation process and records the precedents cited by the petitioner’s counsel for consideration, with the caution that the decision should adhere to due process and statutory requirements.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with partial relief; Exts P14 and P15 quashed; directions issued for Village Officer to reconsider Possession Certificate and for Sub Registrar to act on Ext P13 after due process.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

George P.O.
Mary Ouseph
Annie Isaac

Respondents

The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Kuruppampady
The Village Officer, Office of the Village Officer, Asamannoor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. SMT. K. Amminikutty (Sr.GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

George P.O., Mary Ouseph and Annie Isaac claim ownership of Survey No. 452/6/1 in Asamannoor Village, derived from a partition deed (Ext. P1) and their father’s uninterrupted possession until his death on 12.09.2010, followed by their mother’s death on 05.02.2020. They allege that a Possession Certificate, earlier issued by the Village Officer, was cancelled by Ext. P15 without any hearing or due process, and that on the same day the Sub Registrar refused Ext. P13, a Release Deed executed by petitioners 2 and 3 in favour of the 1st petitioner. The petition challenges Exts. P14 and P15 as illegal because the Village Officer could not cancel a possession certificate without due procedure and because registration of Ext. P13 does not require a possession certificate. They rely on judgments cited from Supreme Court/High Court precedents (Eshaque v. Sub Registrar; Thambayiama E.V.) to support their position. Respondents argue that the petitioners have no independent right other than possession, and with the possession certificate cancelled, there is no basis to register Ext. P13. The Court ultimately holds that Exts. P14 and P15 were issued without due process and quashes them, directing the Village Officer to hear the petitioners and determine any action regarding Possession Certificate No. 50681768, and thereafter the Sub Registrar to consider registration of Ext. P13, within defined time frames. The judgment directs prompt remedial action and compliance by the authorities, with liberty for the petitioners to produce relevant documents; the final order is to be issued within two weeks from the hearing and the Sub Registrar to act within two weeks of the Village Officer’s order. The matter is decided by a Single Judge, Devan Ramachandran, J.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners assert they are the legal heirs of their parents and have uninterrupted possession of the property; Ext P15 cancels their Possession Certificate without due process, and Ext P13 Release Deed is not unjustified. They contend that possession certificates are not a prerequisite for registering documents and rely on Eshaque v. Sub Registrar and Thambayiama E.V. to support their view; they seek setting aside Exts P14 and P15 and registration of Ext P13 in favor of the 1st petitioner, arguing for title and rightful transfer among family members.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the petitioners have no title beyond possession, and since the possession certificate was cancelled, the Sub Registrar had no option but to reject Ext P13. They contend that Ext P13 would improperly affect the rights of others and that the certificate’s cancellation was justified.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Eshaque v. Sub Registrar	2002 KHC 74	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioners as supportive authority; the judgment acknowledges the case but the current decision does not rely on it as a binding precedent for the outcome.
Thambayiama E.V. v. Sub Registrar, Kasaragod and Another	2020 (1) KHC 858	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioners; treated as part of the referenced authorities but not applied as controlling authority in the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against George P.O. and Mary Ouseph and Annie Isaac v. Sub Registrar, Kuruppampady and Village Officer, Asamannoor and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA,** ## **1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 9143 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 GEORGE P.O., AGED 63 YEARS S/O.PANICHAYAM KARAYIL POKKATHAYI OUSEPH, POKKATHAYI HOUSE, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, NEDUNJAPRA P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 549. 2 MARY OUSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS D/O.PANICHAYAM KARAYIL POKKATHAYI OUSEPH AND W/O.POULOSE OUSEPH, KAVANAMATTOM HOUSE, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, PANICHAYAM KARAYIL, ASAMANNOOR P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 549. 3 ANNIE ISAAC, AGED 59 YEARS D/O.PANICHAYAM KARAYIL POKKATHAYI OUSEPH AND W/O.PAILY ISAAC, KAVANAMATTOM HOUSE, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, PANICHAYAM KARAYIL, ASAMANNOOR P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 549. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KURUPPAMPADY P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 545. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ASAMANNOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 549. BY ADV. SMT. K.AMMINIKUTTY (SR.GP) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners claim to be the owners of a property comprised of in Survey No.452/6/1, of the Asamannoor Village and they assert title to it through Ext.P1. 2. The petitioners say that their father – Sri.P.P.Ouseph, was the original owner of the said property and that he was enjoying uninterrupted possession of the same, until he died on 12.09.2010. They say that their mother subsequently died on 05.02.2020 - which is evident from Ext.P2, and that they are the only legal heirs of their parents, thus being eligible to full ownership and possession of the property in question. 3. The petitioners allege that, this being so, a Possession Certificate, which was issued to them earlier by the Village Officer, was cancelled by the said officer without assigning any reason through Ext.P15 order on ## **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** 3 04.12.2020; and on the same day, the Sub Registrar, Kuruppampady, refused the registration of Ext.P13 Release Deed executed by petitioners 2 and 3 in favour of the 1[st] petitioner. 4. The petitioners assert that Exts.P14 and P15 are wholly illegal and unlawful because; for one, the Village Officer could not have issued Ext.P15 without following due procedure, particularly when there is no contest that their parents were in uninterrupted ownership and possession of the property until their deaths and subsequently they have been continuing so; and for the second, because for registering Ext.P13, the insistence on a Possession Certificate was unnecessary and impermissible. The petitioners rely in substantiation on the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Eshaque v. Sub Registrar**_ **[2002 KHC 74]** and _**Thambayiama E.V.**_ ## **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** ## 4 ## _**v. Sub Registrar, Kasaragod and Another**_ **[2020** ## **(1) KHC 858]** . 5. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Exts.P14 and P15 be set aside and the Sub Registrar be directed to register Ext.P13, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 6. In reply to the afore submissions of Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan - learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.K.Amminikutty - learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P14, the petitioners have no right over the property, except that they claim possession over the same; and thus contended that the Sub Registrar was completely justified in having rejected their request for registering Ext.P13. She added that, since the petitioners' Possession Certificate has been cancelled by the Village Officer, the Sub Registrar had no other option, but to deny the registration of ## **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Ext.P13, since the claim of possession by the petitioners over the property has not been validly established. 7. When I evaluate the afore submission of Smt.K.Amminikutty, from the touchstone of the materials on record, I cannot find favour with it because Ext.P15 has been issued by the Village Officer cancelling an earlier possession certificate issued by him in favour of the petitioners without even affording them an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners claim ownership and possession of the property through various documents - copies of which have been placed on record – but none of these have been considered by the Village Officer while the earlier possession certificate had been cancelled. I am unable to fathom under which provision in law the said Authority has done so and how a Possession Certificate, earlier issued, could have been “frozen” 6 ## **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** without any steps being initiated for it to be withdrawn or cancelled in terms of law. 8. That apart, as rightly stated by Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan, the production of a possession certificate is not relevant as far as the registration of a document is concerned because what is important is the nature of the title that the petitioner asserts with respect to the property and the manner of the assignment which they propose with respect to it. In the case at hand, Ext.P13 is seem to be executed by petitioners 2 and 3 in favour of 1[st] petitioner – their own sibling – on the assertion that they were in continuous ownership and possession of the property in question, subsequent to the death of their parents. 9. I, therefore, am of the firm opinion that both Exts.P14 and P15 cannot find favour and that the matter will certainly require to 7 ## **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** be reconsidered by the competent Authority. 10. In the afore circumstances, I quash Exts.P14 and P15; with a direction to the Village Officer, Asamannoor, to hear the petitioner and decide whether any action is required to be taken with respect to the Possession Certificate bearing no.50681768, which had been issued to them earlier. The petitioners, of course, are at liberty to produce all relevant documents before the said respondent to demonstrate their possession over the property in question; and the said Authority will, thereafter, issue an appropriate order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 11. Once an order is issued by the Village Officer in terms of the afore directions, the petitioners will be at liberty to produce the same before the 1[st] respondent - Sub 8 ## **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** Registrar, who will thereafter consider their request for registration of Ext.P13, noticing the fact that the same does not assign property in his technical sense, but only causes the release of the rights of petitioners 2 and 3 in favour of 1[st] petitioner. While doing so, the said Authority will also keep in mind the afore precedents cited by Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan. The action as afore ordered shall be completed by the 1[st] respondent – Sub Registrar, within a period of two weeks from the date on which the petitioners approach him as directed above. This writ petition is thus ordered. Sd/- ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.** ww **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9143/2021** ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF PARTITION DEED NO.578/1967 DATED 18.02.1967 OF PERUMBAVOOR SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE. EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.D0020643-1009142 DATED 24.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.D0020643-2002261 DATED 05.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.50511568 DATED 25.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE. EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOCOPY OF TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.4412232 DATED 19.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE IN RESPECT OF REMITTANCE OF TAX IN THANDAPER NO.2218 FOR THE YEAR 2012-2014. EXHIBIT P6 THE PHOTOCOPY OF LOCATION SKETCH BEARING NO.1541/113 DATED 28.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE IN RESPECT 20 ARES OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN RE-SURVEY NO.265/9 AND 3.20 ARES OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN RE-SURVEY NO.265/10IN BLOCK NO.14, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. EXHIBIT P7 THE PHOTOCOPY OF TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.KL07051705420/2020 DATED 30.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE IN RESPECT OF REMITTANCE OF TAX IN THANDAPER NO.2218 FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021. 10 ## **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** |EXHIBIT P8|THE PHOTOCOPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE| |---|---| ||BEARING NO.50681768 DATED 02.10.2020| ||ISSUED BY THE ASHAMANNOOR VILALGE OFFICE.| |EXHIBIT P9|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THANDAPER ACCOUNT OF| ||ASHAMANNOOR VILALGE OFFICE IN RESPECT OF| ||20 ARES OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN RE-SURVEY| ||NO.265/9 IN BLOCK NO.14, ASAMANOOR| ||VILALGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM| ||DISTRICT IN THANDAPER ACCOUNT NO.2218| ||DATED 27.09.2020.| |EXHIBIT P10|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THANDAPER ACCOUNT OF| ||ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE IN RESPECT OF| ||3.20 ARES OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN RE-| ||SURVEY NO.265/10 IN BLOCK NO.14,| ||ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK,| ||ERNAKULAM DISTRICT IN THANDAPER ACCOUNT| ||NO.2218 DATED 27.09.2020.| |EXHIBIT P11|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF| ||BASIC TAX RESISTER ISSUED BY THE| ||ASHAMANNOR<br>VILLAGE<br>OFFICER<br>DATED| ||06.01.2021 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY| ||SITUATED IN RE-SURVEY NO.265/9 AND 3.20| ||ARES OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN RE-SURVEY| ||NO.265/10 IN BLCOK NO.14, ASAMANNOR| ||VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM| ||DISTRICT INCLUDED IN THANDAPER ACCOUNT| ||NO.2218.| |EXHIBIT P12|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF| ||SETTLEMENT REGISTER ISSUED BY THE| ||TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CENTRAL SURVEY| ||OFFICE, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 14.12.2020.| |EXHIBIT P13|THE PHOTOCOPY OF RELEASE DEED DATED| ||03.12.2020 EXECUTED BY PETITIONERS 2 AND| ||3 IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P14|THE PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECTION BEARING| ||NO.C111/2020 DATED 04.12.2020 ISSUED BY| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| ## **W.P.(C) No.9143 of 2021** **==> picture [12 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** EXHIBIT P15 THE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.277/20 DATED 04.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.