Kerala High Court
Sadasivan Nair vs District Collector on 12 September, 2013
Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY,THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/10TH KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 22479 of 2012 (H)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER :
-------------------
SADASIVAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.LATE NARAYANA PILLAI, SRUTHY HOUSE,
PAZHAKULAM P.O., PAZHAULAM EAST MURI,
PERINGANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
A.MOHANAN NAIR, S/O.AYYAPPAN NAIR, INDIRA VILASOM HOUSE,
PAZHAKULAM KIZHAKKU MURI, PERINGANADU VILLAGE,
ADOOR TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645.
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
ADOOR-689630.
3. TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR-689630.
4. SARADAMMA,
MUKALAYATHU VEEDU, PAZHAKULAM P.O., ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689630.
*ADDL.R5 & R6 IMPLEADED
5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, ADOOR.
sv
WP(C).No. 22479 of 2012 (H)
----------------------------------------
6. PALIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PALIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAZHAKULAM.P.O.
ADOOR -691527.
*ADDL. R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.09.2013
IN IA 12304/2013.
R1 TO R3 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA
R4 BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN
ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN
ADDL.R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 22479 of 2012 (H)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
----------------
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.No.134/2012 ON THE FILES
OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADOOR.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.02.2012 IN
WP(C)No.6196/2012.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2012 IN
WP(C)No.11480/2012.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NUMBERED AS R5-1041/2012
DTD.24.04.2012, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBERED AS B5-2613/2012
DTD.20.09.2012, WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED ON 25.09.2012
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RDO.
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2012.
EXT.P8(a): TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAL APPLICATION.
EXT.P8(b): TRUE COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BOFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP ISSUED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.
EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.06.2013 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
-------------------------------------
// TRUE COPY //
P.S.TO JUDGE
sv
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) No. 22479 of 2012
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 1st day of November, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 report submitted by the 3rd respondent and Ext. P7 order passed by the second respondent, based on Ext. P5, whereby transfer of registry has been effected in favour of the 4th respondent, which according to the petitioner is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules and against the actual facts and figures as to the law governing succession in respect of the persons concerned.
2. The petitioner is the son-in-law of the 4th respondent. When the petitioner was living along with his first wife and daughter in Saudi Arabia, the wife and daughter bid farewell to the world due to some fire accident. In the course of further proceedings, the 4th respondent made an application before the 3rd respondent to effect transfer of Registry, leading to Ext. P5 report, culminating in Ext. P7 order. It is stated that the second respondent, who passed Ext. P7 order, does not have any power, jurisdiction or authority to have effected the transfer of Registry, by virtue Rule 3 (c) and (4) of the W.P.(C) No. 22479 of 2012 : 2 : Transfer of Registry Rules, more so when no enquiry as contemplated under 27 (i) of the Rules was conducted, and hence the challenge.
3. Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent points out that, admittedly two civil suits are pending before the Munsiff' Court Adoor, as O.S. No. 134/2012 and O.S. No. 374/2013, out of which O.S. No. 134 of 2012 stands transferred to Family Court, Thiruvalla, where it has been numbered as O.P. No. 1447 of 2012. O.S. No. 374 of 2013 has been filed by the 4th respondent herein, with reference to the line of succession and eligibility of the 4th respondent and the petitioner with regard to the rights and liberties to enjoy the property, seeking for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner and others concerned. It is stated that an interim order of injunction has been passed in the said case. The learned counsel also seeks to sustain Ext. P5 report and Ext. P7 order, with reference to the relevant provisions of law.
4. After hearing both the sides, including the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that basic issue is still pending consideration before the competent Civil Court and as such, this Court does not find it necessary to conduct any scrutiny W.P.(C) No. 22479 of 2012 : 3 : with regard to the sustainability of Exts. P5 and P7. This is more so, in view of the law declared by this Court on many an occasion, holding that mutation effected in terms of the Transfer of Registry Rules is only with regard to the entry in the revenue records, and this by itself will not declare or divest any title; which of course is a matter to be considered by the competent Civil Court. Merely for the reason that Ext. P7 order has been passed by the second respondent based on Ext. P5 report of the 3rd respondent, that by itself will not confer or declare any title to the 4th respondent, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to have the same.
In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner and the 4th respondent to pursue the matter before the Civil Court. The rights and liberties flowing from Exts. P5 and P7 will depend upon the outcome of the verdict to be passed by the Civil Court in the aforesaid suits.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd