Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7.Before admission, notice was ordered to the respondents and records were called for. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.Muthu Geetharajan, would attack the findings of the learned trial Judge on the ground that Ex.B2 was registered at Parasalai, Kerala State wherein the suit property is situated at Sri Vaikuntam in Tamilnadu and that the registration of Ex.B2 sale deed itself is not valid under law as per Section 28 of the Registration Act 1908, which runs as follows:-

"28.Place for registering documents relating to land.- Save as in this part otherwise provided, - (a) every document mentioned in clauses (a), (b),

There cannot be any two opinion with regard to the above said provision of law. If the sale deed is to be registered in respect of the property situate in the State of Tamilnadu, it shall be registered in the office of the Sub Registrar within whose Sub District it is situated.

8.A perusal of Ex.B2 sale deed will go to show that under Ex.B2 not only the plaint schedule property but also the property situate in Parasalai, Kerala State was conveyed under Ex.B2. The schedule 1 to Ex.B2 is the plaint schedule property which is in Srivaikuntam Panchayat, Tamilnadu State. The schedule 2 to Ex.B2 is the property measuring 7 cents in Survey No.115/15 in Parasalai Firka, Parasalai Panchayat, Parasalai village, Neyyartin Karai Taluk, Parasalai Sub District in Trivandrum District, Kerala State.

9.Under such circumstances, Section 28 of the Registration Act is not a bar to register Ex.B2 sale deed at Parasalai, Kerala State since one of the properties conveyed under Ex.B2 is situate at Parasalai State. The learned counsel relying on 2003 (1) CTC 539, M.MANOHARADHAS V. C.ARUMUGHAPERUMAL PILLAI and contend that showing a strip of land situate in Kerala State as security for the property conveyed under the sale deed situate in Tamilnadu, sale deed registered in Parasalai sub Registrar Office, Kerala State was held to be illegal and void.

11. In that case, the suit property was situate at Kanyakumari District and within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar at Nagercoil. The first defendant had executed the sale deed Ex.B1 dated 26.06.1985 at Parasalai of Kerala state to enable the property at Survey No.80/1, Parasalai Village, in Neyyartin Karai Taluk is shown as a security. The first respondent/the plaintiff has produced Ex.A6 Certificate from the Tahsildar stating that Sri Rajavel D1 has no possession or ownership of the property in S.No.80/1, which was shown as security for the Ex.B1 sale. Only on such circumstances, it was held that Ex.B1 sale deed cannot be a valid sale. The point to be noted is a strip of land was shown as a security in Ex.B1 sale deed in that case was in Parasalai Village but the Tahsildar Certificate Ex.A6 shows that the first defendant had no possession or ownership in respect of the said strip of land in S.No.80/1 Parasalai village to offer as the security in respect of the property sold under Ex.B1. The property sold under Ex.B1 was at Kanyakumari District within the jurisdiction of Sub Registrar of Nagercoil. Only on such circumstances, it has been held that the registeration of the sale at Parasalai Sub Registrar Office at Kerala State in respect of the property situate at Kanyakumari District is illegal and bad and void in law. But that is not the case herein , under Ex.B2 sale deed which was executed by the original owner Balasubramanian in favour of the first defendant under Ex.B2 is not only in respect of the plaint schedule property but also for another property in Survey No.115/15 measuring 7 cents situate in Parasalai Village, Neyyartin Karai Taluk, Parasalai Sub District, Trivandrum District, Kerala State. There is absolutely no eveidence let in before the trial Court to show that item No.2 to the schedule to Ex.B2 namely Survey No.115/15 in Parasalai Firka, is not situate in Parasalai firka and the said Balasubramanian, the vendor under Ex.B2 had no right title or possession in respect of item No.2 to Ex.B2 to convey the same under Ex.B2 in favour of the first defendant. On such circumstances, the ratio decidendi in the ratio 2003(1) CTC 539, will not be applicable to the present facts of the case.