The Chief Manager vs Sobhana Surendran on 7 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

The Chief Manager vs Sobhana Surendran on 7 April, 2026

The appellant, who is the Chief Manager of the Kerala Financial Corporation (K.F.C.), alleges that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.14824/2023 - declaring that registration of a document does not require the owner to obtain the Record of Rights (RoR) Certificate - is incorrect and causes great prejudice in the facts of this case.

2. Smt.Dhanya P.Ashokan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.M.R.Venugopal - learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, argued that, when the property in question stands validly attached by her client, the plea of the latter for permission to sell it, and to have the Sale Deed registered, without an 'RoR', ought not to have been acceded to by the learned 2026:KER:30838 WA NO. 504 OF 2024 -4- Single Judge. She insisted that, as per Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 ('Act'), all transactions over the property in question by the original owner is void and not binding on her client. She prayed that the impugned judgment be, therefore, set aside.

3. There was no appearance for the respondents when this Appeal was called today; and we are, therefore, constrained to dispose of this matter with reference to the documents on record and the submissions of the appellant.

4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition, relying upon Jacob v. Village Officer [2020 (4) KLT 271]; thus declaring that production of an 'RoR' Certificate for registration of a document is not mandatory.

5. On abstract principles, the afore view cannot be doubted; but the question arises whether this would cause any prejudice to the 2026:KER:30838 WA NO. 504 OF 2024 -5- facts of this case.

6. The appellant asserts that the property in question has been attached by them for the default of certain loan liabilities by the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner. If this be so, then Section 44 of the 'Act' may apply; and in any event, if the attachment is prior to the sale, then the right of the appellant to proceed against the property, is protected through the statutory prescriptions.

7. That said, the specific case of the first respondent is that the property offered as security to the appellant, for the loan availed of by her or her husband, is distinct from the one involved in this case. But, as seen above, the contra assertion of the 'K.F.C.' - the appellant, is that they have attached the property involved in this case also.

2026:KER:30838 WA NO. 504 OF 2024 -6-

8. Obviously, if there is a validly effected attachment over the property, then it would operate as per law, even against subsequent transfers. Of course, this is for the 'K.F.C.' to pursue and sustain as per law.

9. In such perspective, we will be even justified in recording that there was no requirement for the appellant to have filed this Appeal because, all which the learned Single Judge has directed is that the registration of the Sale Deed should be done by the Registering Authorities without insisting for an 'RoR' Certificate. This does not, in any manner, construe that existing attachment over the property is effaced, or that the appellant cannot proceed against it based on such, as per law.

2026:KER:30838 WA NO. 504 OF 2024 -7- With the afore clarification, this Appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

                              BASANT BALAJI
akv                               JUDGE
                                              2026:KER:30838
WA NO. 504 OF 2024

                             -8-



             APPENDIX OF WA NO. 504 OF 2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE I           TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   NOTICE  DATED
                     21/08/2023    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD

RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court