Allowed

Sarangadharan v. Village Officer

Kerala HC9 Mar 2022WP(C)/4357/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Village Officer to consider the petitioner's application for transfer of property registry based on the Family Membership Certificate, explicitly indemnifying the Officer from future litigation claims.

What did the court decide?

The Village Officer is directed to consider the petitioner's application for transfer of registry expeditiously, not later than two weeks, at the risk and responsibility of the petitioner.

Sarangadharan Vs Village Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4357 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

SARANGADHARAN, AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN, VARICKANIKKAL HOUSE,
VARANDARAPPILLY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680303.

¶6

BY ADVS.
P.BABU KUMAR
VISHNU BABU

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1VILLAGE OFFICER
VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE OFFICE,
VARANDARAPPILLY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680303.

¶9

2 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR-680303.

¶10

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 4357/22

JUDGMENT

The petitioner s ays that the property involved in this case was bequeathed to him by his late father through Ext.P1 Will; and that consequent to his death, he presented it along with Ext.P3 Certificate of family membership, before the 1 st respondent

¶16

– Village Officer for its transfer of Registry in his favour, but that it has been refused to be acted upon, merely for the reason that it is an unregistered Will. He says that, in fact, the said Authority has now issued Ext.P7 proceedings requiring that all legal heirs and the witnesses to the Will appear before him to ascertain the veracity of the said document and contends that this is illegal, unlawful and completely unnecessary.

¶17

2 . The afore submissions of Sri.P.Babu Kumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.K.Amminikutty, saying that the Village Officer is only acting by way of abundant caution because, should any claim be raised by any person against the property in future

¶18

on the contention that Ext.P1 is a fraudulent document, then the

¶19

¶20

WPC 4357/22

¶21

said Authority will be held responsible and would be dragged into unnecessary litigation. She submitted that, therefore, unless the petitioner is able to establish that the persons mentioned in Ext.P3 are the only legal heirs of his father, the Village Officer is incapacitated from acceding to his request for transfer of Registry of the property covered by the said document.

¶22

3 . I must say that I find some force in the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader because, should the Village Officer accede to the request of the petitioner and if any further claims are to rise, it is likely that he will be dragged into litigation and such other action. However, if this Court is to indemnify the said Authority and allow the action, as requested by the petitioner, solely at his request, I am certain that the Village Officer can obtain no further objection in considering his application, particularly on the strength of Ext.P3 Certificate. This is affirmed by the learned Senior Government Pleader also.

¶23

In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition and direct the 1 st respondent – Village Officer to take up Ext.P6 application of the petitioner and consider the same, after

¶24

WPC 4357/22

¶25

¶26

confirming compliance of all other statutory requirements, on the

¶27

strength of Ext.P3. This shall be done at the risk and responsibility of the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

I make it reiteratingly clear that any action to be completed by the Village Officer in terms of this judgment would solely be at the risk and responsibility of the petitioner and, hence should any claim be raised against the property by any person, including those mentioned in Ext.P3 or otherwise, he would be completely held indemnified and would be kept away from any litigation or action pursuant thereto.

¶29

Needless to say, after the afore exercise is completed, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the 2 nd respondent – Assistant Engineer, KSEB, for electric connection, which shall be acceded to as per law at that time.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶32

RR

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

WPC 4357/22

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4357/2022

¶37

`PETITION`	`ER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`A TRUE` `15.2.20`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE WILL DATED` `12.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`DEATH C` `FATHER.`	`ERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER'S`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`FAMILY` `PETITIO` `15.12.2`	`MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF` `NER'S DECEASED FATHER DATED` `021.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`A TRUE` `JUDGMEN` `24.10.2`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECREE AND` `T IN O.S.1337/2018 DATED` `018.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`A SURVE`	`Y SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`A TRUE` `FILED B` `19.1.20`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THAT APPLICATION` `EFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED` `22.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`A TRUE` `RESPOND`	`PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY ISSUED BY 1ST` `ENT DATED 28.1.2022.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`A TRUE` `11.11.2` `OFFICER`	`COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED` `021 FILED BEFORE FOREST RANGE` `.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`A TRUE` `DATED 2` `RANGE O`	`COPY OF THE SECOND REPRESENTATION` `3.11.2021 FILED BEFORE FOREST` `FFICER.`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`A TRUE` `DATED 2` `RESPOND`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION` `1.12.2021 FILED BEFORE 2ND` `ENT.`

Sarangadharan v. Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarangadharan v. Village Officer

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

Siddick P.A Vs the District Collector

Platinum Super Structures Pvt.Ltd., Vs State Bank of India

Mohan R, Vs Tahsildar

Ashique Ali Vs State of Kerala

Sojan Jacob @ Sojan Vs District Collector

A.A. Pareed, Vs State of Kerala