The Court held that the existence of an attachment on a property does not justify refusal to effect transfer of registry based on a will. The Court directed the respondents to process the transfer and land tax remittance within three weeks.
Respondents directed to consider petitioner's application for transfer of registry and remittance of land tax within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 665 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
1 RAJAMANI, W/O. KRISHNAN, ALUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERAMANGALAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 703.
BY ADV G.HARIHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERAMANGALAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 703.
SMT.M.ANIMA.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 665 OF 2022
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that the property involved
in this case was owned by her husband late R.Krishnan and that he had bequeathed the same in her favour through Ext.P3 Will.
R.Krishnan died on 05.03.2018 - as is evident from Ext.P2 Death Certificate; and that the property in question has remained in her exclusive ownership and possession thereafter. She says that, however, when she applied for transfer of Registry of the property in her favour on the strength of the said Will, the respondents have refused to do so merely saying that there is an attachment over it at the instance of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam, in O.A.No.66 of 2021.
of the afore attachment only when she obtained
WP(C) NO. 665 OF 2022
-3-
Ext.P4 Encumbrance Certificate and argues that
even if there is any such attachment, the transfer of Registry of the property cannot be refused for that reason and she relies on the judgments of
this Court in Joykutty Thomas v. Village Officer , Pattuzhi South and Others [2009 (3) KLT 914] and Rimmy v.State of Kerala & Others [2012 KHC 2981] in substantiation.
respondents be directed to accede to her request and effect transfer of Registry of the property in her favour, leading to payment of land tax on it, on the strength of Ext.P3 Will.
learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned Government Pleader – Smt.M.Anima, saying that respondents are incapacitated from acceding to the request of the petitioner only because there is an order of attachment over the
WP(C) NO. 665 OF 2022
-4-
property at the instance of the DRT. She submitted that, however, if this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to effect transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that there is an attachment over the property in question, necessary action thereon can be taken without any avoidable delay.
transfer of Registry of the property is effected in favour of the petitioner, the attachment over
WP(C) NO. 665 OF 2022
-5-
it will continue to be in effect and the
persons/entity, who has obtained the same, will have full recourse against it as per law.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for transfer of Registry of the property and for remittance of land tax thereon on the strength of Ext.P3 Will, after affording her an opportunity of being heard;
thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, the transfer of Registry or
permission to remit land tax on the property shall not be denied to the petitioner solely because there is an attachment over it, because as I have already said above, same will run on the property, notwithstanding such transfer, until it is vacated
WP(C) NO. 665 OF 2022
-6-
or modified as per due process in law.
Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv
WP(C) NO. 665 OF 2022
-7-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 665/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 706/72 OF SRO NEMMARA EXECUTED ON 2607-1972
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 05-03-2018 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR AND HEAD CLERK OF THE BIRTH AND DEATH REGISTRATION WING OF THE MELARCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 23-03-2018
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL AS WILL NO. 9/III/2009 OF SRO, NEMMARA ON 19-01-2009
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO. 5030/2021 DATED 30-092021 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, NEMMARA.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Registrar can refuse to effect transfer of property title by reason of attachment on the property.
Whether a registered will can be relied upon for the effect of transfer of property title notwithstanding an attachment on the property.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joykutty Thomas v. Village Officer, Pattuzhi South and OthersReferred¶27
Joykutty Thomas v. Village Officer, Pattuzhi South and Others [2009 (3) KLT 914]
Rimmy v.State of Kerala & OthersReferred¶27
Rimmy v.State of Kerala & Others [2012 KHC 2981]
Rajamani
The Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk
The Village Officer, Cheramangalam
M.Anima.G.P.
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Devan Ramachandran
Parties & counsel
