Tinu Abraham and Betzy Mathew v. Village Officer, Village Office, Ranni, Pathanamthitta district; Radhamaniyamma; Shari P.S.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 32596 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 TINU ABRAHAM AGED 38 YEARS S/O. STEPHEN ABRAHAM, THOTTUPURATHU MELETHIL HOUSE, RANNI P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 672 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER STEPHEN ABRAHAM, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. STEPHEN THOTTUPURATHU MELETHIL HOUSE, RANNI P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 672. 2 BETZY MATHEW, AGED 32 YEARS W/O. TINU ABRAHAM, THOTTUPURATHU MELETHIL HOUSE, RANNI P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 672 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER STEPHEN ABRAHAM, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. STEPHEN THOTTUPURATHU MELETHIL HOUSE, RANNI P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 672. BY ADVS. K.SHAJ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER KUM.K.SALMA JENNATH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 672 2 RADHAMANIYAMMA, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. LATE SASIDHARAN PILLAI, PUNNOORETH HOUSE, THOTTAMAN MURI, RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 672 3 SHARI P.S, D/O. LATE SASIDHARAN PILLAI, PUNNOORETH HOUSE, THOTTAMAN MURI, RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 672 **2** ## **W.P.(C).No.32596/2019** 4 SHYAM P.S, S/O. LATE SASIDHARAN PILLAI, PUNNOORETH HOUSE, THOTTAMAN MURI, RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 672 R1 BY ADV. MABLE KURIAN, GP **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.32596/2019** **3** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------W.P.(C).No.32596 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of July, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners are husband and wife. The 1[st] petitioner purchased a property as per Ext.P3 document and 2[nd] petitioner purchased a property as per Ext.P4 document. The petitioners submitted applications for mutation in the proper format along with a representation before the 1[st] respondent to get the above properties mutated in their respective names and seeking permission to pay land tax. It is the submission of the petitioners that the 1[st] respondent did not mutate the property stating the reason that Munsiff's Court, Ranni had ordered attachment of the petitioners' properties vide its orders in O.S.Nos.85/2019, 86/2019, 87/2019 and 88/2019. The counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in **Balakrishnan Manayil v. State of Kerala [2019 SCC** **Online (Ker) 4076],** in which it is held that simply because there is attachment of the property the mutation cannot be **4** ## **W.P.(C).No.32596/2019** denied. Therefore this writ petition is filed with following prayers: - _i. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the first respondent to effect mutation of the properties covered by Exhibits P3 and P4 sale deeds in the names of the petitioners within a specified time limit and to accept the land tax including the arrears till date._ - _ii. to pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case._ - _iii. to award the cost of this petition._ 2. The Government Pleader opposed the prayers in the writ petition. A statement is filed by the 1[st] respondent. The relevant portion of the statement is extracted hereunder: _“3. It is submitted that the 1[st] petitioner has obtained, vide Exhibit P3 Sale Deed No.684/1/19 dated 13.05.2019 of SRO Ranni, ½ undivided (Oodukor) right in 08.32 Ares of landed property in Ranni Village, Block No.6, Re-survey No.28/25 (Old Sy.No.482/6/2). The location of building in that property and location of the land belonging to the 1[st] petitioner is not described in the deed. It is_ **W.P.(C).No.32596/2019** **5** _submitted that the 1[st] petitioner has not obtained absolute right as per the above sale deed. The 1[st] petitioner obtained only ½ undivided (Oodukor) right which cannot be specifically located._ _4. It is submitted that vide Exhibit P4 Sale Deed No.685/1/19 dated 13.05.2019 of SRO Ranni, the 2[nd] petitioner has obtained ½ undivided (Oodukor) right in 08.32 Ares of landed property in Ranni Village, Block No.6, Re-survey No.28/25 (Old Sy.No.482/6/2). The location of that building in that property and the location of the land belonging to the 2[nd] petitioner is also not described in the above deed. Moreover the 2[nd] petitioner is not obtaining absolute right the 2[nd] petitioner have only undivided Oodukor right which cannot be specifically located._ 5. It is incorrect to say that petitioner purchased 8.32 Ares of property each from the respondents No.2-4. That the petitioners are holding only ½ undivided right over the 8.32 Ares of land. There are attachments by the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Ranni in: - O.S.No.85/19 Rs.2,08,100/O.S.No.86/19 Rs.2,08,300/O.S.No.87/19 Rs.4,31,500/O.S.No.88/19 Rs.1,91,000/- _6. The property of the petitioners are attached by the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Ranni in the above mentioned cases for a sum of Rs.10,38,900/- and the documents are created without locating the_ **W.P.(C).No.32596/2019** **6** _property.”_ 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are husband and wife. They purchased half share each. They will be satisfied if the authorities accept land tax in their joint name. The Government Pleader take me through Rule 14(3) and (4) of the Transfer of Registry Rules. The Government Pleader submitted that in respect of Oodukkoor cases of the erstwhile Travancore area, transfer of registry shall be sanctioned only for the sub-division of the share hold and the assessment paid by the transferor and not for the area transferred. Admittedly the petitioners are husband and wife. They purchased half share each of a property as per Exts.P3 and P4 documents. They want to pay tax for the above property. Admittedly there is not dispute between the petitioners. They submit that they will file a fresh application before the authorities for paying tax in their joint name. The counsel for the petitioners relied on the last portion of Rule 14(4) in which it is stated that system of holding lands without specifying the area and the boundaries of each share shall not **7** ## **W.P.(C).No.32596/2019** be recognised in new case. But in such cases, the transfer of registry shall be ordered in the names of the all the joint shareholders making them jointly and severally responsible for the payment of land tax. The counsel submitted that he will be satisfied if the respondents allow for the same. 5. I think the same can be allowed. As I said earlier, there is no dispute between the petitioners. They are husband and wife. They purchased half share each as per Exts.P3 and P4. In such circumstances, if a joint application is filed by the petitioners to effect mutation of the properties covered by Exts.P3 and P4, the authorities can do the same in the light of Rule 14 (4) of the Transfer of Registry Rules. As far as the attachment of the property is concerned, this Court in **Balakrishnan Manayil's case (supra)** clearly stated that acceptance of tax shall not be refused on account of the pendency of an attachment proceedings. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed with following directions: 1. Petitioners are free to file a joint application to effect mutation of the properties covered by Exts.P3 and P4 sale deeds in the name of the **8** ## **W.P.(C).No.32596/2019** petitioners jointly. The petitioners can file such a joint application within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2. If such an application is received by the 1[st] respondent as stated above, the 1[st] respondent will effect mutation of the properties covered by Exts.P3 and P4 in the joint name of the petitioners and allow them to pay tax for the property covered by Exts.P3 and P4, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of that application. JV Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **W.P.(C).No.32596/2019** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32596/2019** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 684/2019 DATED 13-05-2019 IN RANNI SRO EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 685/2019 DATED 13/05/2019 IN RANNI SRO EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PWOERE OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE SECOND PETITIOENR EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PV125/19/RNI DATED 17/08/2019 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 06/09/2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MUNSIFF'S COURT, CENTER, RANNI EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26/09/2019 SWORN BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PETITIOENRS HEREIN EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDR OF THE PETITIONERS.**