Remanded

Kuruvila Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2016WP(C)/9013/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay in deciding a pending appeal regarding property mutation filed by the petitioners as joint heirs of a late owner against the fifth respondent. The court held that since the appeal is pending with the appellate authority, this court could not examine merits but directed the officer to decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) to take on board the pending appeal (Ext.P11) and decide on the same within two months providing sufficient opportunity of hearing.

Kuruvila Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9013 of 2014 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. KURUVILA ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, PATHALIL PUTHENPURACKAL @ PAZHAMANNIL HOUSE, VELLAYIL, KOTTANADU.P.O.PERUMPETTY VILLAGE,

¶8

MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MATHEW, S/O. ABRAHAM, PATHALIL PUTHENPURACKAL @ PAZHAMANNIL HOUSE, VELLAYIL, KOTTANADU.P.O. PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

3. P.A. ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, PATHALIL PUTHENPURACKAL @ PAZHAMANNIL HOUSE, VELLAYIL, KOTTANADU.P.O. PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

4. THOMAS ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, PATHALIL PUTHENPURACKAL @ PAZHAMANNIL HOUSE, VELLAYIL, KOTTANADU.P.O. PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA-689101.

¶16

3. TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, MALAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689585.

¶17

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMPETTY, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689585.

¶18

-2-

¶19

-2WPC NO 9013 OF 2014:

¶20

5. MARIAMMA, D/O. MATHAI, CHAKKUMVELIL HOUSE, KURIANNOOR KARA, THOTTAPUZHASSERI, NOW AT PATHALIL PUTHENPURACKAL @ PAZHAMANNIL HOUSE, VELLAYIL, KOTTANADU.P.O. PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689588.

¶21

R1-R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S.KANNAN R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) SRI.ABHISHEK KURIAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

K.V.

¶24

WP(C).No. 9013 of 2014 (B)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

P1. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2852/1961 DATED 27-9-1961 OF SRO VENNIKULAM.

¶28

P2. TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 8-1-1993.

¶29

P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 14-122007 IN S.A. NO. 557/1994 AND S.A. NO. 576/1994.

¶30

P4. TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO. 2239/1966 DATED 2-81966 OF SRO VENNIKULAM.

¶31

P5. TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DATED 16-6-1988 OF MATHAI.

¶32

P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 33/2014 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT THIRUVALLA.

¶33

P7. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION GRANTED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA.

¶34

P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8-10-2013 IN WPC NO. 20472/2008.

¶35

P9. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 19-12-13 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶36

P10. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-1-14 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶37

P11. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED UNDER RULE 18 OF TRANSFER OF REGISTRY RULES BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 15-2-14.

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶43

W.P.(C)No.9013 of 2014

¶44

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2016

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

Petitioners are brothers, who are the children of one late Abraham. Abraham had left certain properties in favour of the petitioners. Fifth respondent has filed an application for effecting mutation. Petitioners were heard in the adjudication proceedings as provided under the Transfer of Registry Rules. However, a decision was taken in favour of the 5^th respondent and mutation is effected in the name of the 5^th respondent. Aggrieved, petitioners have preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the statutory Appellate Authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules, and same is pending consideration. According to the petitioners, as provided under the Transfer of Registry Rules, since petitioners as well as the 5^th respondent are joint property holders, mutation cannot be effected in favour

¶47

W.P.(C)No.9013 of 2016 2

¶48

of the 5^th respondent alone. It is in this background,

¶49

seeking appropriate direction to the appellate authority to take a decision, this writ petition is filed.

¶50

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Government Pleader and counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent and perused the documents and pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

¶51

Since the subject issue is pending before the 2^nd respondent in appeal it is not proper on the part of this Court to remark with respect to the merits of the subject

¶52

matter. Since the appeal is pending it is for the 2^nd respondent take a decision on the same. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent take on board Ext.P11 appeal, which is pending allegedly from 15.02.2014 and take a decision on the same in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the 5^th respond or any other affected or interested persons within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Interim order granted by this Court on

¶53

W.P.(C)No.9013 of 2016 3

¶54

28.03.2014 will continue till such time.

¶55

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶56

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶57

[ True copy]

¶58

P.A. to Judge

¶59

rmm/24/10/2016

Kuruvila Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuruvila Abraham v. State of Kerala

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

Aleyamma Varghese Vs Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Mohammedkutty Vs District Collector

Mohammedkutty Vs State of Kerala

Geordy K.Abraham Vs Public Works Department

M.T George Vs the Manager, Uco Bank

M/S.Etz Industries Vs State of Kerala