Allowed

Albert Alexander v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC18 Jan 2016RP/1057/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a review petition directing revenue officials to transfer registry to the petitioner based on a settlement deed and a civil court decree, subject to validity challenges by interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Revised the judgment in the writ petition to direct the revenue officials to effect transfer of registry in favour of the petitioner within one month of service of the judgment copy.

Albert Alexander Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 1057 of 2015 (Y)

¶6

---------------------------------

¶7

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶9

------------------------------------------------------

¶10

ALBERT ALEXANDER, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. A.NALLAYYAN, PAZHANIYARPALAYAM, KOZHINJANPARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.R.MANIKANTAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

-------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR - 678 101.

¶15

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHINJANPARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

RP.No. 1057 of 2015 (Y)

¶20

---------------------------------

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR IN OS.NO.246 OF 1995.

¶24

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.31.8.1995 IN OS.NO.246 OF 1995.

¶25

ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DTD.31.8.1995 IN OS.NO.246 OF 1995.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶32

==================

¶33

R.P No. 1057 of 2015

¶34

in W.P.(C).No. 19796 of 2015 ==================

¶35

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2016

¶36

This review petition is at the instance of the writ petition.

¶37

The writ petitioner approached the revenue officials to accept basic tax and also sought issuance of possession certificate. It appears that brothers of the petitioner have also raised claim for possession certificate and also attempted to pay basic tax. On account of this, revenue officials refused to accede to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the said action in the writ petition.

¶38

The petitioner claims based on the settlement deed executed by his father namely 'Nallayan'. The learned Government Pleader submits that 'Nallayan' had cancelled the settlement deed and therefore there is a civil dispute as to the right and title in respect of the above deed. This Court relegated

¶39

R.P No. 1057 of 2015 in W.P.(C).No. 19796 of 2015 - : 2 :-

¶40

the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Civil Court. The petitioner has come up with the review petition stating that during the life time of the father, the petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking an injunction and obtained a decree of injunction. Annexure B and C are the judgment and decree of the Civil court.

¶41

The Civil court decree would show that the petitioner is in possession of the property. Though it was a suit for injunction nevertheless the petitioner's father had an opportunity to contest the matter based on the cancellation deed. However it is seen that he has not contested in the matter.

¶42

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that based on the settlement deed as well as based on the possessory right as reflected from the decree and judgment of the Civil court, the revenue officials shall effect the transfer of registry in favour of the petitioner. The transfer of registry is for the fiscal purposes. The documents relied by the petitioner would certainly entitled him for transfer of registry subject to any challenge to be made by the aggrieved. This will be subject to the right, if any, available to the brothers of the petitioner to the

¶43

R.P No. 1057 of 2015 in W.P.(C).No. 19796 of 2015 - : 3 :-

¶44

question validity of settlement deed. Needful shall be done by the revenue officials within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Therefore the review is allowed and the writ petition is disposed of, in the light of above facts and circumstances as above.

¶45

sd/-

¶46

sab

¶47

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Albert Alexander v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Albert Alexander v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.M.Illiyas Vs the Executive Engineer

S. Reghunathan Vs Additional Tahasildar

Varsha v.Nambiar Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Kasaragod

Dr.Bijuneesh.S.N Vs State of Kerala

Azhithala Azhimukham Manual Dredging Vs State of Kerala

Gautham Raj K.V. Vs the General Convenor, Kerala School Kalolsvam