Allowed

Neethu Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2022WP(C)/27673/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the 4th respondent (Tahsildar) to accept the petitioner's application for mutation of property entry under settlement deed within one month, despite a pending suit by the 5th respondent for an easement right, subject to the suit's outcome overriding this action.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to accede to the petitioner's application for mutation of property entry within one month, subject to no legal impediments and the overriding effect of any pending civil su

Neethu Francis Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 27673 OF 2016 NEETHU FRANCIS AGED 34 YEARS D/O.FRANCIS, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANDARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, P O MULAVUKADU, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682505. BY ADV SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ANNEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANDU-682030. 3 TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM-682011. 4 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682505. 5 P J JAMES AGED 56 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANDARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, P O MULAVUKAD, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682505. BY ADVS. SMT.A.A.GEETHA SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE SRI.K.M.FAISAL-GP

¶8

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

WP(C) NO. 27673 OF 2016

¶10

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

The petitioner seeks that the competent among respondents 3 and 4 be directed to accede to Ext.P3 application, wherein, she has requested for transfer of Registry of the property, comprised of 22.66 Ares in Sy.No.137/10 in Re-survey No.3 of Mulavukad Village, which she obtained through Settlement Deed No.1592/2016, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶13

2 . The afore request of the petitioner, as made by her learned counsel – Sri.Peeyus A. Kottam, was opposed by Smt.Geetha - learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent, saying that her client has already filed a suit seeking easement rights over the property in question as a 'pathway'. She argued that since the said suit is pending, the request for transfer of Registry of the property in favour of the petitioner is incompetent.

¶14

3 . The learned Government Pleader – Sri.K.M.Faisal, appearing for the official respondents, submitted that 3 rd respondent has been incapacitated from considering the request of the petitioner, as made in Ext.P3, because of the pending civil suit. He added that, if this Court is inclined to hold otherwise, said Authority is willing to abide by any direction.

¶15

¶16

WP(C) NO. 27673 OF 2016

¶17

4 . When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that 5th respondent is not claiming the entire property, but only a right of way through it, in the form of an easement.

¶18

5 . Of course, he has filed a suit, which is still pending; however, I am of the view that mere pendency of the said suit will not stand in the way of transferring Registry of the property in favour of the petitioner, particularly because, if the 5 th respondent is able to establish his rights as claimed by him , it will have an overriding effect on such action.

¶19

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 4th respondent to take up Ext.P3 application of the petitioner and accede to it, if there are no other legal impediments standing in the way, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶20

I make it reiteratingly clear that any decision to be entered into by the competent Civil Court in the suit will have an overriding effect on the action as ordered above and the petitioner will be obligated to abide by the same.

¶21

Needless to say, once the transfer of Registry is effected, the

¶22

WP(C) NO. 27673 OF 2016

¶23

¶24

petitioner will also be permitted to remit land tax on the property in question, without any further delay thereafter, subject to the afore condition.

¶25

sd/-

¶26

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO. 27673 OF 2016

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27673/2016

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO 1592/2016 OF ERNAKULAM SRO DTD 19/4/2016 IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO 4796681 DTD 19/5/2015 SHOWING PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR THIS 22.66 ARES OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF PETITIONERS FATHER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 7/7/2016 FOR MUTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD 8/7/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER MULAVUKADU
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD 16/7/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER MULAVUKAD TO THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK.

Neethu Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neethu Francis 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

K.B.Jayakrishnan Vs the Tahsildar

Kochurani, Vs State of Kerala

Alias K.T. Vs the Executive Engineer

Sahana Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Santhamma J. Vs Smt. Sari

B Koyamma Vs Union of India