IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19305 of 2011(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. EALAMMA, W/O.LATE CHRISTY, AGED 85, EDASSERY HOUSE, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKKARA P.O., COCHIN – 682 021. 2. SOOSY, W/O.LATE SAMUEL CHRISTY, AGED 51, EDASSERY HOUSE, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKKARA P.O., COCHIN – 682 021. 3. LISSY E.C., D/O.CHRISTY, AGED 52, EDASSERY HOUSE, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKKARA P.O., COCHIN – 682 021. BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, ERNAKULAM DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 36, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL ENGINEER. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM – 682 011. R1 BY SRI. A. JAYASANKAR, S.C, K.S.H.B. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19305/2011-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DTD. 07/02/1994 BETWEEN R1. AND PREDECESSOR OF PETITIONERS. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 28/07/2009 EXECUTED BY THE R.1. IN FAVOUR OF DECEASED SAMUEL CHRISTY, THE PREDECESSOR OF PETITIONERS. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 20/03/2010 EXECUTED BY 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS IN FAVOUR OF P.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1. BY THE PETITIONERS FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE DEED. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. BY THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19305 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is an agreement of sale executed by the first respondent in favour of late Samuel Christy, the deceased son of the first petitioner and the husband of the 2nd petitioner. As per Ext.P1 the property scheduled to the said document, has been agreed to be sold to the deceased. In terms thereof, the deceased made payments and as per the conditions of the said agreement, Ext.P2 sale deed was executed in his favour. 2. The deceased and the 2nd petitioner did not have any issues. On the death of Sri. Samuel Christy, the first petitioner, his mother and the 2nd petitioner, his wife, executed Ext.P3 sale deed in favour of the 3rd petitioner, a sister of the deceased. Based on Ext.P3, 3rd petitioner applied for mutation of the property and to that W.P.(C) No. 19305 OF 2011 :2 : application, first respondent filed Ext.P4 objection and the contention raised therein was that the property was not alienable without their prior sanction, in view of the covenants contained in Exts.P1 and P2. 3. Thereupon petitioners submitted Ext.P5 application to the first respondent requesting for regularizing the transfer in favour of the 3rd petitioner. There was no response to the application. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed, praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to effect transfer of regularization of the property covered by Ext.P3 in favour of the 3rd petitioner. 4. Going by the covenants contained in Exts.P1 and P2, the transfer could not have been effected without the concurrence of the Board. It is therefore that they have raised objections by Ext.P4. W.P.(C) No. 19305 OF 2011 :3 : 5. Irrespective of the legality or otherwise of the said covenants and the objections raised as per Ext.P4, fact remains that technically there is a lapse on the part of the petitioners in getting the previous consent of the first respondent before executing Ext.P3. However, the document has been executed and has been registered. In such circumstances, I feel it is only proper that the first respondent should regularize the transaction in favour of the 3rd petitioner by passing appropriate orders on Ext.P5, the representation submitted by the petitioners. 6. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5, regularizing the transfer of Exts.P1 and P2 property in favour or the 3rd petitioner as per Ext.P3 document. Such orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. W.P.(C) No. 19305 OF 2011 :4 : 7. It is also directed that the orders passed by the first respondent as above will be produced before the 2nd respondent, who shall thereupon pass orders on the application of the 3rd petitioner for mutation of the property. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge