Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The above-captioned writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to perform the registration of a proposed relinquishment deed without insisting for production of Record of Rights (RoR) certificate.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner approached the 4th respondent to get registered a relinquishment deed. The property is subject to certain attachment and the petitioner is intending to purchase the property along with the liability. The petitioner approached the 4th respondent to get the property registered and in the deed presented, he has mentioned about the court attachments and the pending litigations. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent refused to register the deed on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the RoR certificate. It is in the above background that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions.

3. Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that no records have been produced by the petitioner to show that the document was in fact presented before the 4th respondent and that an order under Section 76 of the Registration Act, 1908 was passed by the Registrar refusing registration. It is submitted that if the document is presented, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed.

4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the document would not be registered if the RoR certificate is not produced. This Court in Synudheen v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 221] and later in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Another [2020 (4) KHC 167] have held that production of RoR certificate is only optional and cannot be made mandatory and the registration officials concerned will not have jurisdiction to refuse registration on the mere ground that the party who presents the document has not produced the RoR certificate in respect of the property concerned.