The High Court of Kerala directed the respondents to effect mutation in favor of the petitioner who purchased the property, holding that refusal based on missing legal heirs was invalid as mutation cannot affect title.
Directed respondents to take steps to effect mutation in the petitioner's name subject to other legal requirements.
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 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/22ND MAGHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 988 of 2015 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, MOOLAVEL HOUSE, KAINAKARY AATTUVATHALA, KUTTANAD THALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.RAJESH
SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KUTTANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN 688501.
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI.M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 988 of 2015 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1739/2011 DATED 24.06.2011. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.20.12.13.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.4.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
========================
W.P.(C). No. 988 of 2015
-------------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of February, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has purchased the property having an extent of 61.63 Ares as per sale deed No. 1739/2011 dated 24.06.2011 of Pulikunnu Sub Registry. The petitioner submitted necessary application before the 2nd respondent for effecting mutation in terms of the Transfer of Registry Rules satisfying the application fee as borne by Ext.P2 dated 25.7.2011. The request made by the petitioner was turned down by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 dated 6.3.2012 stating that all the legal heirs are not shown in Ext.P1 title deed. This made the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P4 which however is still to be acted upon. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was let known as per Ext.P5 dated 28.4.2014, issued by the 2nd respondent, reiterating the stand that, the request for effecting mutation cannot be considered for want of legal heirs in the party array.
W.P.C. No.988 of 2015
-2-
W.P.C. No.988 of 2015 -3-
having any right or interest over the property concerned. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether refusal to effect mutation solely on the ground of missing legal heirs is valid.
Whether the respondent must effect mutation strictly in terms of Transfer of Registry Rules.
Whether mutation creates or divests property title.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
George Joseph
The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Kuttanad
The Village Officer, Kainakary Village
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
