WP(C) Nos. 3884/2024 and 3892/2024: Vijayalakshmi R. v. Tahsildar (LR), Kattakkada Taluk; G. Gopa Kumar v. Tahsildar (LR), Kattakkada Taluk

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 3884 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **VIJAYALAKSHMI R AGED 42 YEARS W/O RAJAN C, UTHRATTATHI HOUSE, NRW.AC41/1,T.C.NO.51/2500(5),THIRUMALA, ARAMADA.P,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695032** **BY ADVS. K.B.PRADEEP HARISANKAR R HRIDYALAKSHMI P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THAHSILDAR (LR) KATTAKKADA TALUK OFFICE,KATTAKKADA P.O, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695572 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE OFFICE, VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, MALAYANKEEZHU SUB DISTRICT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695571** **BY ADV. AJITH VISWANATHAN, GOVT. PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).3892/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)NOS.3884&3892/2024** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA,** **1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 3892 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **G.GOPA KUMAR AGED 48 YEARS S/O GOPINATHAN NAIR, PUNARTHAM HOUSE,T.C.NO.10/2190(3),KANJIRAMPARAP.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695030** **BY ADVS. K.B.PRADEEP HARISANKAR R HRIDYALAKSHMI P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THAHSILDAR (LR) KATTAKKADA TALUK OFFICE,KATTAKKADA P.O,THIRUVNANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695572** **2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE OFFICE, VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, MALAYANKEEZHU SUB DISTRICT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695571** **BY ADV.SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).3884/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)NOS.3884&3892/2024** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **WP(C) No.3884/2024** Petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P4 sale deed. One Antony executed Ext.P1 will bequeathing his property in favour of his son, One A.K. Vincent with a rider that two items of property would be succeeded by the son only after the lifetime of M.Kanakamma, wife of the executant. On the death of the said Antony, the right over the property reserved over the lifetime of M.Kanakamma was settled by her in favour of her son, A.K. Vincent by Ext.P2 document. Out of the property covered by Ext.P1 will, 3.6 cents of property was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P4 sale deed executed by A.K.Vincent and M.Kanakamma and the said M.Kanakamma joined in the execution of Ext.P4 for the reason that she was enjoying a life interest over a building in the property. After Ext.P4 sale deed was registered, the petitioner submitted application before the 2nd respondent for affecting mutation. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P6 communication sought clarification from the 1st respondent expressing a **WP(C)NOS.3884&3892/2024** **4** doubt regarding the validity of the sale in favour of the petitioner by Ext.P4 in view of the condition in Ext.P1 that A.K.Vincent, beneficiary of the Will would succeed to the corpus of the Will only after the lifetime of M.Kanakamma. Petitioner contend that for the purpose of effecting mutation in terms of Transfer of Registry Rules an enquiry into the title of the applicant’s vendor is uncalled for. ## **WP(C) No.3892/2024** 2. The facts of the case are exactly similar to the facts in the WPC No.3884 of 2024 except that the petitioner herein purchased 1.25 Ares as per Ext.P4 sale deed. 3. Ext.P4 sale deed in both these writ petitions was duly registered by the registering authority. The doubt was raised by the 2nd respondent when an application was submitted for mutation of the property. Though M.Kanakamma had a life interest in the property covered by Ext.P1, she had executed Ext.P2 document whereby settling her rights over the property reserved over her lifetime, but with a condition that she will be entitled to reside in the building in Schedule No. 1 but it is to be noted that Ext.P4 was executed both by A.K.Vincent and M.Kanakamma **WP(C)NOS.3884&3892/2024** **5** specifically for the reason that she was enjoying life interest over a building in the property. It is only after being satisfied with these aspects that Ext.P4 deed was registered by the registering authority. The question is whether respondents 1 and 2 have the power to examine the issue regarding title when a property is sought to be mutated based on a registered sale deed. This Court in **Vijayalakshmi v. Tahsildar, 2019 (2) KLT 373** has held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as follows: “ _15. This Court is constrained to enter into discussion on the abovesaid issues only because the 1st respondent has cited those aspects as the main ground of rejection in the impugned Ext.P-15 order. Therefore, the said observations and findings made by this Court on those issues are only made from the limited perspective to decide on the matters relating to grant of Transfer of Registry and mutation._ _16. As already noted hereinabove, the 1st respondent Tahsildar as the authority concerned with grant of mutation and Transfer of Registry, has no power to examine such vexed issues of title and therefore he has unnecessarily strayed himself into areas which are totally irrelevant and not germane for the purpose of the enquiry for exercising the powers conferred on him. It has been held by this Court in a catena of decisions as in Sainudheen v. State of Kerala (2013 (1) KHC 437, para 13) that the Tahsildar, as the mutation granting authority, cannot decide on the validity of the documents, and the title of the previous owner and that Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules has made the said position abundantly clear. Rule 16 of the Transfer of_ **WP(C)NOS.3884&3892/2024** **6** _Registry Rules mandates that “the summary, enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes, and it does not affect the title of any person in respect of the lands covered with the decisions in Transfer of Registry cases and the question of legal right is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and pattas could be revised from time to time in accordance with such judicial decisions. It has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts in various decisions as in Surney v. Inder Kaur (1996 (2) KLT OnLine 1114 (SC) = AIR 1996 SC 2823) that mutation of property in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. Therefore in cases like the present one, where the registered land holder concerned has transferred the property, then the transferees/assignees will stand in the shoe of the land holder and by the cumulative impact of S.5(2) and S.3(3) (d), the competent revenue officials are under the bounden and statutory obligation to accept basic land tax from them. Otherwise it will amount to nothing but abdication to statutory obligations and duties of such competent revenue officials, which directly leads to loss of revenue.”_ 4. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and the declaration of law in **Vijayalakshmi’s** case cited supra, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this writ petition. The above writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P4 sale deed in both the writ petitions as sought for in Ext.P5 within an **WP(C)NOS.3884&3892/2024** **7** outer limit of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petitions are allowed as above. SD/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** **WP(C)NOS.3884&3892/2024** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3892/2024** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1** **.TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DT 11-02-2009 BEQUEATHING HIS PROPERTIES IN FAVOUR OF HIS SON SRI. A.K.VINCENT BORN IN M.KANAKAMMA** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DT 05-12-2017.** **Exhibit P3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTIES COVERED BY EXHIBIT P-1 DT 11-05-2023** **Exhibit P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO . 2834 OF 2023 EXECUTED ON 24-07-2023 BY A.K.VINCENT AND M.KANAKAMMA.** - **Exhibit P5** - **TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P6** **.TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17-112023 BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT HAS SOUGHT FOR A CLARIFICATION FROM THE 1 ST RESPONDENT BY HIS LETTER DT 17-112023.THE** **WP(C)NOS.3884&3892/2024** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3884/2024** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 .TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DT 11-02-2009** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DOCUMENT NO.3925 OF 2017 DT 05-122017** **Exhibit P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTIES COVERED BY EXHIBIT P-1 DT 11-05-2023** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO. 2833 OF 2023 EXECUTED ON 24-072023 BY A.K.VINCENT AND M.KANAKAMMA.** **Exhibit P5** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT DATED 8/11/2023** **Exhibit P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17-112023 BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1 ST RESPONDENT**