Petitioner challenged a revenue order declining mutation due to civil court attachment. The Court held prior High Court precedents bar attachment from blocking mutation upon title satisfaction. The impugned order was set aside.
Impugned order Ext.P4 set aside; Respondents directed to effect mutation within four weeks of this judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933
WP(C).No. 8153 of 2011(T)
-------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
RAVEENDRANATHAN,AGED 64 YERARS, S/O.MACHATT MANICKAN,IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM – 688 013.
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA – 688 001.
R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). NO.8153/2011-T:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN O.S. 630/2007.
EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1.
EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.32546/2010 DTD. 26/10/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 31/01/2011.
EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2009 (2) KHC 602. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2010(4) KLT 215.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
W.P.(C) No.8153 OF 2011
Dated this the 15th day of June 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P4 order, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by title deed has been declined, referring to some attachment order passed by the Civil Court.
W.P.(C) No.8153/2011
2
Ext.P2, on satisfying the title and such other requirements, by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'four weeks' from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
vdv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether attachment ordered by a Civil Court bars the way of a person from enjoying the property by effecting transfer of registry in revenue records and remitting basic tax.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thulasibhai v State of KeralaReferred¶34
2010 (4) KLT 215
RAVEENDRANATHAN
THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
