Disposed

Joseph Thomas, v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC5 Feb 2019WP(C)/3390/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court directed the Tahsildar to immediately consider an application to cancel a mutation order based on an ex-parte decree. The order must align with a superior civil court judgment favoring the petitioner and be decided within two months. The Government Pleader assisted the official respondents.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the mutation application, afford hearing, and decide it in light of the civil court verdict within two months of producing this judgment.

Joseph Thomas, Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3390 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOSEPH THOMAS, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE THOMAS, OF PAKKATHANAM HOUSE, EDATHUVA, THAKAZHI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 11, WEST MINISTER DRIVE, VORCHEES, NEW JERSEY-08043, USA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON SRI.K.SURESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN 686 101.

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHETHIPUZHA, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHETHIPUZHA, PIN 686 106.

¶12

3 BENOY GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. O.C GEORGE, OTTATHIL HOUSE, NALUKODI MURI, NALUKODI P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 548.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, GOVT.PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3390 of 2019

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(C)No.3390 of 2019

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2019

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶25

(i) to call for the records leading to Exhibits P7 and P8 (File No.9504/16/H1 of the Changanacherry Taluk Office) and to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate steps to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 application filed on behalf of the petitioner under the Transfer of Registry Rules and to pass appropriate orders; and

¶26

ii) to grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Heard Sri.K.Gopala Krishna Kurup, learned Senior counsel instructed by Smt.Deepthi S.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Priya Shanavas, learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 & 2. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to contesting respondent No.3 will stand dispensed with.

¶28

It is stated that the petitioner is the co-owner of the property coming to an extent of 4 Ares 50 Square Metres of land

¶29

WP(C).No. 3390 of 2019

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

comprised in re-survey No.243/14 (old survey No.221/7) in Block No.3 of Chethipuzha Village, Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam Revenue District. The said property was purchased by the petitioner and another person as per registered sale deed No.2261/2005 of SRO, Changanacherry from one Smt.Rosamma George, who is in predecessor-in-interest of the 3^rd respondent. Later, Ext.P-2 original suit O.S.No.487/2010 was filed by the said vendor (Smt.Rosamma George) and her son, the 3^rd respondent, seeking to set aside the said sale deed No.2261/2005 before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. The suit was initially set decreed ex-parte on 05.10.2012. Later, the petitioner and the other defendants appeared and the said impugned ex-parte decree dated 05.10.2012 was set aside as per Ext.P-1 order dated 03.06.2015 on I.A.No.371/2015 and I.A.No.379/2015 in O.S.No.487/2010, on the file of the said Additional Sub Court, Kottayam and thus later, the suit was determined on merits as per Ext.P-4 judgment and decree dated 20.10.2017, where the suit was finally disposed of rejecting the prayer to set aside the impugned sale deed and also rejecting the prayer for declaration of title of the plaintiff therein, with respect to the subject property. But earlier,

¶32

WP(C).No. 3390 of 2019

¶33

-:4:-

¶34

on the strength of the ex-parte decree dated 05.10.2012 in the said O.S, an application was filed by the said vendor-Smt.Rosamma George to effect mutation in her name, which was allowed by the 1^st respondent-Additional Tahsildar, Changanacherry as per order dated 01.01.2013. When the petitioner came to know about the said mutation order rendered on 01.01.2013, he had subsequently filed an application on his behalf as per Ext.P-7 application dated 07.03.2017 seeking to cancel the said mutation granted on 01.01.2013 and to mutate that property in the name of the petitioner and the other persons concerned, on the strength of Ext.P-4 judgment dated 20.10.2017, which was determined on merits in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also made available the decree relatable to Ext. P-4 judgment dated 20.10.2017 in the O.S before the 1^st respondent-Tahsildar for taking effective action on Ext.P-7. The complaint of the petitioner is that till date no effective action is forthcoming from respondents 1 & 2, to consider Ext.P-7 application and decide it on merit, in the light of Ext.P-4 judgment and decree rendered thereon. It is now pointed out that the vendor-Smt.Rosamma George is now no more and the 3^rd respondent-Benoy George is her legal representative.

¶35

WP(C).No. 3390 of 2019

¶36

-:5:-

¶37

In this connection it is to be borne in mind that Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 stipulate therein that the summary enquiry and decision thereon as per the said Rule is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and it does not confer or extinguish title in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases. But that the question of title is always subject to adjudication by the civil courts and pattas will be revised from time to time, in accordance with such judicial decisions. Now going by the facts of the case, it is seen that after the sale of the property, the sale deed was challenged by the vendorSmt.Rosamma George, which culminated in an ex-parte decree dated 05.10.2012 in her favour. Prima facie, it appears that it is on the basis of the said ex-parte decree dated 05.10.2012 that the mutation in respect of the property was revised, so as to change it in the name of Smt.Rosamma George and the 3^rd respondent. Now the facts projected in this case, it appears that the said ex-parte decree dated 05.10.2012 has already been set aside as per Ext.P-1 common order dated 03.06.2015 rendered by the civil court and much later, even Ext.P-4 judgment has been rendered on 20.10.2017 in the said O.S on merits, which is stated to be in

¶38

WP(C).No. 3390 of 2019

¶39

-:6:-

¶40

favour of the petitioner and the owner concerned. If that be so, the 1^st respondent–Tahsildar is obliged by the mandate of the second clause of Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules to revise the mutation granted, in the light of such revised judicial verdicts as in Exts.P-1 & P-4.

¶41

Accordingly, it is ordered that the 1^st respondentTahsildar will immediately take up the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P-7 application and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent and any other affected parties/legal heir/legal representative of the deceased Rosamma George and will render a considered decision on Ext.P-7 application in the light of Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules and taking into account the verdicts of the civil courts as in Exts.P-1, P-4, etc. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the 1^st respondent, without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶42

WP(C).No. 3390 of 2019

¶43

-:7:-

¶44

With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition

¶45

(Civil) will stand disposed of.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶48

vgd/11.02.19

¶49

WP(C).No. 3390 of 2019

¶50

-:8:-

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 3- 6-2015 IN I.A NO. 371/2015 AND I.A NO. 379/2015 IN O.S NO. 487/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 487/2010 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN THE SUIT O.S 487/2010 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-102017 IN O.S NO 487/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE MR. GEORGE JOSEPH, BEFORE THE INFORMATION OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICER, CHETHIPUZHA. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13-122016 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHETHIPUZHA. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7-32017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY BY ONE SMT. MOLIKUTTY DEVASSIA. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-042018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 13-8-2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED ON 14-08-2018 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Joseph Thomas, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Thomas, v. the Tahsildar

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

V.Reghunathan, Vs the Thahasildar

Sindhu Chandran Vs the State of Kerala

Suju R Vs State of Kerala

Suharabi, Vs the District Collector

Sabu Varghese Vs the Sub Registrar

Siby Mathew @ Sibichan, Vs the State of Kerala