Disposed

Muraleedharan v. Tahsildar, Taluk Office

Kerala HC12 Sept 2018WP(C)/2834/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging proceedings by Tahsildar regarding property mutation and patta application. Held by court directing Tahsildar to pass final orders before passing mutation and patta, ensuring notice to all affected parties and not constraining legal opinion.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to pass final orders regarding the 4th respondent for mutation and patta after notice to all affected parties within three months, ensuring other litigations are considered

Muraleedharan Vs Tahsildar, Taluk Office — Partition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 21ST BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2834 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MURALEEDHARAN AGED 65, S/O VELAYUDHAN NADAR,INDIRA BHAVAN, THIRUPURAM PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA-695121.

¶12

¶13

ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA.695121.

¶14

3 MOHAN KUMAR ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,RTALUK OFFICE, NEYYATINKARA.695121.

¶15

¶16

DAS MONY S/O RATNASWAMI NADAR, ARSHITHA BHAVAN,PUNARDHAM, THIRUPURAM PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695125.

¶17

¶18

THRESSIAMMA D/O RATNASWAMI NADAR, ANNA ILLAM,THIRUPURAM DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE.695125.

¶19

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER SRI.V.K.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (ELOOR)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.2834/17

JUDGMENT

1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-

¶25

i)To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent pursuant to Exhibit P6 and quash the same.

¶26

ii)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1^st respondent to enquire and dispose of the application of the 4^th respondent seeking to draw patta and effect mutation on the subject matter of property in O.S.No.597/1980 before the Court of II Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara as contested case as enjoined under Rule 11 of Transfer of Registry Rules by countenancing Exhibits P1 to P3 dehors Exhibit P5.”

¶27

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶28

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.No.597/1980 before the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. It is stated that the plaint schedule Item No.5 having an extent of 84 cents

¶29

W.P.(C).No.2834/17

¶30

¶31

comprised in Survey No.80/10 of Thirupuram village, excluding certain portions of the property, had been held to be partiable and liable to be partitioned into seven equal shares between the plaintiff, 1^st defendant, 2^nd defendant, 3^rd defendant, 26^th defendant, 27^th defendant and 32^nd defendant, in Exhibit P1 preliminary decree. It is stated that while the matter was pending in final decree proceedings, the 4^th respondent had approached the 2^nd respondent seeking mutation of the property. It is stated that though initially the 2^nd respondent had held that the issue can be decided only after the final decree proceedings are complete, the 3^rd respondent had, by Exhibit P6 proceedings, re-opened the proceedings and sought to rehear the matter.

¶32

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the identity of the property allotted to the sharers had not been ascertained in final decree proceedings, the sale as well as the mutation of the properties in question would not be proper at that juncture.

¶33

W.P.(C).No.2834/17

¶34

¶35

5.The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would submit that the preliminary decree passed by the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara in O.S.No.597/1980 has attained finality and that the final decree proceedings are also nearing completion. It is stated that the notice issued by the 3^rd respondent is only to consider the issue and the proceedings may be permitted to go on. It is stated that orders may be passed by the 2^nd respondent taking note of the final decree as well. It is contended that there are other litigations between the parties which are also liable to be considered before orders are passed.

¶36

6.I have considered the contentions advanced. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the opinion that the 1^st respondent has to take up the matter and to pass final orders with regard to claim of the 4^th respondent for mutation, taking note of the preliminary decree as well as the final decree passed by the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The effect of the other judgments in litigation between the parties also have to be taken note of. Orders, as

¶37

W.P.(C).No.2834/17

¶38

¶39

directed above, shall be issued after issuing notice to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent and all other affected parties. It is made clear that the matter shall be considered in accordance with law, after hearing the contentions of the parties and the 1^st respondent shall not be limited by Exhibit P5 legal opinion. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶41

sd/-

¶42

ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2000 IN OS NO.597/1980 BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶47

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 22.11.1980 IN IA.NO.6341/1980 IN O.S.NO.597/1980.

¶48

W.P.(C).No.2834/17

¶49

¶50

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2014 IN O.S.NO.551/2012 OF COURT OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LEGAL OPINION DATED 19.3.2015 FROM ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.10.2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. True copy

¶51

P.S to Judge

Muraleedharan v. Tahsildar, Taluk Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan v. Tahsildar, Taluk Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benny C. Mathew Vs Sri. Tomin.J. Thachankary.Ips

Valsamma Charles Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Shaji P.B Vs Kerala Cricket Association

M/S. Mathew Korah & Co. Vs State of Kerala

Elayadath Sudheesh Babu Vs the Principal Chief Forest Conservator and Custodian of Ecologically

Biju S Vs Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation