IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18331 of 2007(G)
1. P.S.HAMSA, PALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL SUB REGISTRAR,
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
4. P.S.SULAIMAN, PALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
5. P.S.ABDUL KAREEM,
6. RAHANA BASHEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/06/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.18331 OF 2007
--------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3 documents, which have
been registered with the 2nd respondent. The contention of the
petitioner is that the property belongs to him and he has executed a
power of attorney in respect of the above said property in favour of
the 4th respondent, which had already been cancelled and the 4th
respondent got those documents executed in favour of the 5th and 6th
respondents fraudulently. The petitioner seeks a direction to the
Registrar to cancel these documents. However, the petitioner was not
able to point out any provision of law under which the 2nd respondent
has power to cancel such documents. If the petitioner has got a case
that these documents have been fraudulently executed and registered,
the remedy of the petitioner is to file a suit for setting aside those
documents. Such a prayer cannot be granted under Article 226 of
Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to
the right of the petitioner to seek such appropriate remedies available
under law.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd