AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER''S EXHIBITS
EXT. P1:-
True copy of the judgment passed in os no 190/09
EXT. P2:-
True copy of the sale deed
EXT. P3:-
True copy of the application dtd 11/1/2012
EXT. P4:-
True copy of the reply notice issued by the 2nd respondent
RESPONDENT�S EXHIBITS:
NIL
The petitioner is seeking for a direction to effect mutation of the property, in the light of the decree in O.S.No.190/09 and the execution of the title deed in tune with the said decree by the Munsiff Court as per Exhibit P2. The averments in the Writ Petition show that the property is having an extent of 8 cents in R.S.No. 149 of Keezhur Village in Thalasseri Taluk and failing to get the fruits of the agreement, the petitioner approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.190/09 and it was decreed on 27.2.2010. Exhibit P2 is the copy of the title deed of the property executed in favour of the petitioner, who deposited the balance consideration before the Munsiff Court which is dated 27.8.2011.
In Exhibit P4 mention is made about certain revenue recovery proceedings; but the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on the date of execution of the document, no such proceedings were there and if any demand has been made prior to the execution of the title deed Exhibit P2, the petitioner is prepared to remit the amount also and apart from the same,, it is submitted that, in the light of the the judgment of this Court in Thulasibhai v. State of Kerala (2010(4)KLT 215), pendency of revenue recovery proceedings is not a ground to deny the request for effecting mutation. In the said judgment, it was held as follows:
Even if mutation is effected in pursuance to the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, such mutation can have no impact either on the proceedings initiated by the Government nor will it improve the title of the petitioner over the property in question. In case if the provisions of S. 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act are attracted to the transfer in question, even if mutation is effected in favour of the petitioner, the claim of the respondents will remain unaffected. For these reasons and also as there is no prohibition either in the Revenue Recovery Act or the Transfer of Registry Rules against effecting mutation in respect of a property in relation to which revenue recovery proceedings are pending, the view taken in Exts.P1 and P3 is erroneous.
Therefore, the respondents will take steps to effect mutation and they can also inform the details of the demands made, which have come into existence prior to the execution of the title deed, which the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay also. Appropriate action will be finalised within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition, by the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.