Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 memo issued by first respondent, whereunder the original of Ext.P1 sale deed was refused to be registered. In the document, among the vendors, petitioner has also incorporated the name and address of the previous owner of the property as a co-vender. It is to be done by the petitioner on account of certain errors in the document of title, which had to be confirmed by the previous owner as well. The registering authority issued memo as Ext.P2 indicating that the right of the person appearing as a co-vendor in the document has to be substantiated by production of the previous title deed, which is required in terms of Rule 191(X) of the Registration Rules (Kerala). Rule 191(X) reads as under:
“X. That the Registering Officer is not satisfied as to the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent so to appear.”
W.P.C.No.13875 OF 2014 2 2. Going by the facts of the case, the aforesaid provision cannot apply to the instant case. The co-vendor Sri. Kittunni is neither a registered assign or an agent of the petitioner nor the seller of the property. He was only the previous owner and his presence is only for clarifying some errors which is pointed out by the purchaser of the property. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the first respondent authority was justified in refusing to accept the document for registration. Under these circumstances, his writ petition is disposed of as under:
The first respondent is directed to receive the original of Ext.P1 and take further steps in accordance with law without insisting for credentials of co-vendor, Shri Kittunni, in terms of Ext.P2.
Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE