High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-10-11Writ petition allowed; Ext.P7 set aside; matter...

Kuttan and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 15488 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-10-11
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P7 is set aside and the 3rd respondent – District Registrar is directed to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and having regard to the statements in Ext.P3, with reference to precedents cited by the petitioners, and to pass a fresh order expeditiously, but not later than six weeks from the receipt of a copy of the writ petition. The respondents are to appear on 25.10.2021 for proceedings, or fix another date for hearing to complete the proceedings within the stated time frame.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P7 set aside; matter remanded to the District Registrar for reconsideration after hearing within six weeks; appearance directed on 25.10.2021 to expedite proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kuttan
Baby
Krishnankutty
Mohan
Rajalakshmi
Sathi C.R
Reshmi K.A
Sreenandu

Respondents

State of Kerala
The District Collector, Palakkad
The District Registrar, Department of Registration, Palakkad
The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Parali
The Village Officer, Mundoor Village Office

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Cibi Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Surya Binoy

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P7, an order of the District Registrar that cancelled Ext.P3. Ext.P3 purportedly contemplates a partition of properties earlier divided under Partition Deed No.379/1999, and it records that the parties hold certain lands in joint and separate possession thereafter. The petitioners contend that Ext.P7 misreads Ext.P3 and that the documents show only that the earlier partition was operative, not that each co‑owner held separate and independent parcels by virtue of Ext.P3. They seek a cancellation of Ext.P7 and demand a fresh order after reconsideration. Respondents submit that Ext.P3 acknowledges that the properties were held pursuant to an existing partition and that the petitioners’ claims are not well founded; Ext.P7, having regard to those admissions, was properly issued. The petitioner relies on Cleetus v. Sub Registrar (2012) to argue that a document can be set aside by the Registrar even after inter vivos transfers, but the Court notes that Ext.P3’s language is not unambiguous about separate possession by virtue of Ext.P3. On analyzing Ext.P3 and the surrounding record, the Court holds that Ext.P7 cannot stand as issued. It sets aside Ext.P7 and directs the Registrar to reconsider after hearing, taking care to consider Ext.P3’s statements and relevant precedents, and to issue a fresh order within six weeks.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that Ext.P3 envisages a partition of properties obtained under the earlier partition deed (No.379/1999) and that the parties are shown to hold the lands in joint and separate possession thereafter. They contend the 3rd respondent misinterpreted Ext.P3 and relied on conclusions not supported by the document, leading to Ext.P7. They rely on Cleetus v. Sub Registrar (2012) to argue that a partition document can be cancelled by the Registrar even after inter vivos transfers. They pray for setting aside Ext.P7 and directing the Registrar to reconsider after hearing, examining Ext.P3 in its proper context, the earlier partition deed, and the parties’ statements. Exhibits P1 and P3 are urged to show the true intent of the parties and the legal status of the properties; the court should ensure due process and correct interpretation before issuing a fresh order.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Ext.P3 acknowledges that the properties were held separately pursuant to the partition, and the petitioners’ admissions justify Ext.P7. They maintain that the Registrar acted correctly, given the parties’ statements, and counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of the writ petition. They emphasize that Ext.P7 rests on admissible facts within the partition regime and that the Court should defer to the administrative authority, not re‑interpret the record beyond the admitted facts. The reliance on Cleetus is not applicable to the present facts, as Ext.P3 language and subsequent actions indicate a valid partition and separate possession.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Cleetus & another v. Sub Registrar and another	2012 (2) KLT 177	Positive	The court relies on this decision to illustrate that, notwithstanding an inter vivos transfer, a partition document can be cancelled by the Registrar if warranted by the record.

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 Kuttan and others v. State of Kerala and others 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** ## **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 15488 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 KUTTAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE KUNJU EZHUTHACHAN, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, PUNDANUR, PALAKKAD-678 592.** - **2 BABY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O LATE KUNJU EZHUTHACHAN, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, PUNDANUR, PALAKKAD-678 592.** - **3 KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, PUNDANUR, PALAKKAD-678 592.** - **4 MOHANAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, PUNDANUR, PALAKKAD-678 592.** - **5 RAJALAKSHMI, AGED 48 YEARS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, PUNDANUR, PALAKKAD-678 592.** - **6 SATHI C.R, W/O LATE MANIKANDAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, PUNDANUR, PALAKKAD-678 592.** - **7 RESHMI K.A, D/O LATE MANIKANDAN, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, PUNDANUR, PALAKKAD-678 592.** - **8 SREENANDU, D/O LATE MANIKANDAN, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, PUNDANUR, PALAKKAD-678 592.** - **BY ADV.SRI. CIBI THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.** **WP(C) NO. 15488 OF 2021** **-2-** - **3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.** - **4 THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PARALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 612.** - **5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUNDOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 592. BY ADVS.SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P** - **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR** - **ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO. 15488 OF 2021** **-3-** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners impugn Ext.P7 order of the 3[rd] respondent – District Registrar, through which, their request for cancellation of Ext.P3 has been turned down, saying that said document has already been put into effect by the parties. 2. The petitioners, pointing out to Ext.P3, say that what was proposed therein was a partition of certain properties which they had obtained through an earlier partition deed, namely document No.379/1999; and it was with reference to the same that it is covenanted in Ext.P3 that the parties are in joint and separate possession of the various portions of the land. 3. The petitioners say that, however, the 3[rd] respondent – Registrar, appears to have misunderstood the statements in Ext.P3 and to have rejected their request for cancellation of the ## **WP(C) NO. 15488 OF 2021** **-4-** same through Ext.P7. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P7 be set aside and the 3[rd] respondent – Registrar, be directed to reconsider their request and issue appropriate orders thereon, acceding to their plea. 4. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Cibi Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Surya Binoy, referred to 2[nd] paragraph of page two of Ext.P3 to show that even the parties admit they were holding the properties separately, pursuant to the partition effected thereto. She submitted that, therefore, the 3[rd] respondent – Registrar, cannot be faulted in having issued Ext.P7 and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. In reply, Sri.Cibi Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the judgment of this Court in **Cleetus & another v. Sub** ## **WP(C) NO. 15488 OF 2021** **-5-** **Registrar and another** [2012 (2)KLT 177], to assert that even if there has been a transfer of properties _inter vivos,_ the document can still be set aside by the Registrar. 6. When I examine Ext.P7 – which is the impugned order in this writ petition - it is clear that 3[rd] respondent has held that Ext.P3 partition deed has already been put into operation by the parties, and that they were holding the properties thereunder separately and independently. However, when I examine Ext.P3, it is luculent that what is stated therein is that these properties had been subjected to an earlier partition through the aforementioned deed, and that they were being held jointly and separately thereafter. It does not, _prima facie_ , indicate that properties were being held independently and separately on account of Ext.P3. 7. That said, I must hasten to add that this ## **WP(C) NO. 15488 OF 2021** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Court is not entering into an affirmative declaration on this, but only that the District Registrar must reconsider the matter, taking note of the statements in Ext.P3 very carefully. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7; with a consequential direction to the 3[rd] respondent – District Registrar, to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and adverting to the precedents to be cited by the petitioners, as also the specific statements in Ext.P3 very carefully; thus culminating in a fresh order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this writ petition. In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the directions in this judgment, I direct the parties to mark appearance before the 3[rd] ## **WP(C) NO. 15488 OF 2021** **-7-** respondent at 11 A.M. on 25.10.2021; on which day, said Authority may either hear them or fix another date for hearing and complete the proceedings, within the time frame as above. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv **WP(C) NO. 15488 OF 2021** **-8-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15488/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO 379/1999 OF SRO, PARALI DATED 2.2.199** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24..8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.2.2020 IN WPC NO 4302/2020** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA NO 1656/2020** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE