Allowed

V.P.Lovesy v. the Sub Registrar

Kerala HC1 Jun 2022WP(C)/16365/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a direction to delete an attachment entry in revenue records. The court allowed the petition, directing the respondent to remove the attachment entries within three weeks based on prior communication lifting the injunction.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Sub Registrar is directed to delete the entry relating to the attachment order for the specified survey numbers within three weeks.

V.P.Lovesy Vs the Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 16365 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 V.P.LOVESY AGED 48 YEARS

¶8

S/O.LATE P.K.PAREED, VELLAPPILLY HOUSE, KANJIRAKKAD, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 543.

¶9

2 C.I.ABIDAMOL AGED 43 YEARS W/O.V.P.LOVESY, VELLAPPILLY HOUSE, KANJIRAKKAD, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 543.

¶10

BY ADV K.P.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

THE SUB REGISTRAR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN- 683 542.

¶13

SMT. SHEEJA, C.S, SR.GP.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 16365 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent to delete the entry regarding the attachment order dated 04.03.2005 in respect of 8.10 Ares comprised in survey No.383/24/2, 5.21 Ares comprised in survey No.383/24/2 and 7.28 Ares comprised in survey No.383/24/2 of Perumbavoor Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk.

¶20

The petitioners have produced Exhibit P8, which is a letter addressed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge Ernakulam to the Sub Registrar, Perumbavoor on 13.12.2011, informing that the attachment/injunction effected as per the order in E.A.No.23/05 in E.P.No.1/2003 with respect to the above said properties have already been lifted as per order dated 03.12.2011 in E.A.No.659/2011 in E.P.No.1/2003. Since there is already a communication from the concerned Judge, all that the respondent had to do was to make necessary correction in the records and delete the entries relating to attachment.

¶21

WP(C) NO. 16365 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to delete the entry relating to attachment order in respect of 8.10 Ares comprised in survey No.383/24/2, 5.21 Ares comprised in survey No.383/24/2, and 7.28 Ares comprised in survey No.383/24/2 of Perumbavoor Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. Necessary orders shall be issued within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE

mpm

WP(C) NO. 16365 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16365/2022

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16/03/2005 OF THE AMIN EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN ATTACHED. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ATTACHMENT FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDER AS EA NO.119/2007, DATED 19/11/2007. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 25/02/2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2011 IN EP NO.1/2003 IN AP NO.100/2001 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/12/2011 THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM IN EA NO.659/2011 IN EP NO.1/2003 IN AP NO.100/2001. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/01/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/01/2022 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM TO THE SUB REGISTRAR, PERUMBAVOOR.

V.P.Lovesy v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Lovesy v. the Sub Registrar

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

Meenalochana Vs the Tahsildar

Kerala Gooseberry Ayurveda Health Resort Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chairman

Kesavan Vs the District Collector

Muhammed Kunju Vs Subaida @ Subaida Beevi

Dharma Daivam Devaswom Trust Charitable Sangham Vs State of Kerala

Narayanankutty Vs the District Collector