Dismissed

Raveendra Pillai v. the District Collector, Kollam

Kerala HC2 Jun 2023WP(C)/3709/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mutation of properties acquired via two sale deeds. Mutations for deed P1 (no pending litigation) were ordered; mutation for deed P2 (litigation pending) was stayed pending civil court decision. Petitioner's Writ petition dismissed as reworked.

What did the court decide?

Direction to third respondent to reconsider mutation application for properties under Ext.P1 sale deed and pass orders within three months; Ext.P6 quashed.

Raveendra Pillai Vs the District Collector, Kollam — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 3709 OF 2013

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

RAVEENDRA PILLAI

¶7

AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, 'GOKULAM' KULAKKADA MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM 691 001. 2 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691 506. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KALAYAPURAM KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 560. 4 SREEKALA W/O.ASHOK KUMAR KANNAMKOTTU VEEDU, KULAKKADA MURI, KAYALAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 560. 5 NARAYANAN NAIR S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR KANNAMKOTTU VEEDU, KULAKKADA MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 560. 6 ASHOK KUMAR S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI KANNAMKOTTU VEEDU KULAKKADA MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 560.

WP(C)No.3709/2013

BY ADVS.

SMT.VINITHA.B.(SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.3709/2013

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims right and title over 4.05 and 4.04 Ares of properties comprised in R.Sy.No.59/4/2 in Block No.12 of Kalayapuram Village from the 4th respondent as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds respectively. After the purchase, disputes arose that lead to Ext.P3 suit against the petitioner for a declaration and mandatory injunction alleging that Ext.P2 deed was executed only as a security to discharge the debts incurred and on payment of liability of Rs.20,000/-, the petitioner was to reconvey the property back to the fourth respondent. Petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 to the third respondent Village Officer along with the documents for effecting mutation of the above said properties in his name which request was rejected by the third respondent by Ext.P6 citing the pendency of Ext.P3 suit as the reason.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the civil suit cannot be a reason for rejecting the application for effecting mutation as mutation of the property can only mean entries in revenue records which do not confer the title on the person whose name appears in the revenue records and since no civil suit pending with respect to the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, refusal to effect mutation of that property was

WP(C)No.3709/2013

illegal.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent stating that it was on account of the pendency of O.S.No.431 of 2011 before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara, that the application for mutation was not proceeded further and that the fourth respondent had informed the Village Officer that she did not sell the property of the petitioner and the sale deed was executed only as a security. It was in these circumstances that the request for mutation was refused. It is also pointed out in the counter that the properties described in both the sale deeds are having the same survey number and there were no specific boundaries for the properties which are lying adjacent.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the application for mutation of the properties covered by Ext.P1 sale deed has to be considered as there is no litigation pending with respect to the same. However, with respect to the properties covered by Ext.P2 sale deed, a suit as stated above is pending, the parties will have to abide by the decision of the civil court. A request for mutation can be made subject to the civil court’s decision.

¶26

5 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing

¶27

¶28

¶29

the third respondent to reconsider the request made in Ext.P4 with respect to the properties covered by Ext.P1 sale deed and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any. Ext P6 will stand quashed.

¶30

The Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

csl

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶38

EXT.P1	:	COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1283/2005 OF KALAYAPURAM SUB REGISTRY OFFICE DATED 6.9.2005
EXT.P2	:	COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1454/2005 OF KALAYAPURAM SUB REGISTRY OFFICE DATED 18.10.2005
EXT.P3	:	COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.431/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXT.P4	:	COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.431/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA
EXT.P5	:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.11.2011 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	:	COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.12.2011

Raveendra Pillai v. the District Collector, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendra Pillai v. the District Collector, Kollam

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

Kumari Valsala Vs Komala Devi

Jais Mary Joseph P. Vs Rani George I.A.S.

Valsamma Vs Additional District Magistrate

George Elias and Associates Vs Vimala .v.R

Maya P.Nayar Vs Jayasree S.

Lathika Vs the Vilalge Officer, Kottathara