AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.Jayachandran, J
Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Sub Registrar, which refused to register Ext.P3 partition deed for the reason that certain attachments are existing in respect of the property sought to be partitioned.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Ranjith Thampan, duly instructed by Adv.V.M.Krishnakumar on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents.
This Court is afraid whether the stand taken by the 3rd respondent/Sub Registrar in Ext.P4 can be sustained in law. An attachment before judgment of a property, is not an interdiction or an injunction, restraining alienation of the same. The only effect of an attachment is that any subsequent transaction will be subject to the attachment of the property, so as to constitute a security for the claim of the attaching creditor. In the instant case, Ext.P3 is a partition deed between the husband and wife; and the factum of attachment, as reflected in encumbrance certificate, is recited in Ext.P3, as well.
In the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to prevent the registration of the document, in accordance with law. Accordingly, Ext.P4 will stand set aside. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent/Sub Registrar to register Ext.P3 document, upon the same being presented for registration, provided the document conforms to all requirements in terms of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.