IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33722 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V. CHELLAPPAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. VELUMBAN BAIJU BHAVAN (PULIPARAMBIL), CHUNAKKARA KIZHAKKU FROM MULAMTHADATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL, PERINGANAD VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU M.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE R.D.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGANADU VILAGE OFFICE, PERINGANADU. 3. THANKAPPAN, S/O. VELUMBAN, MULAMTHADATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL, MUNDAPPALLY MURI, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).33722/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner even on 17.11.2008 when the case was called and the situation continues to be the same even as on date. I have, therefore, taken up the writ petition and I am proceeding to dispose of the same on merits. 2. Third respondent is the petitioner's brother. According to the petitioner, pursuant to a Gift Deed executed by the petitioner's father and his brother, petitioner and third respondent derived equal rights to an extent of one Acre six cents of land in R.S.No.448/14. Petitioner is residing with his family and his mother in the said property. A suit for partition came to be instituted at the instance of the petitioner, and the third respondent took up a contention that he is the beneficiary of another Will executed by one of the original Donors, who had cancelled the Gift Deed in W.P.(C).33722/2008 2 favour of the petitioner. Though the Suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Additional District Court, Pathanamthitta. The appeal was allowed and it is stated that the second appeal preferred by the third respondent as R.S.A.220/08 is pending before this Court. It seems that, in the meanwhile, at the instance of the third respondent, mutation already effected in relation to the property was changed. Petitioner has now sought reversal of the same on the basis of the appellate decree and since there is an alleged reluctance on the part of the second respondent in taking action, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. In my view, rights of the parties are to be determined by the Civil Court and if the appellate decree, as stated by the petitioner, has become final and operation of the same has otherwise not been stayed by this Court, then revenue officials are bound to take note of the same and proceed to effect appropriate changes in W.P.(C).33722/2008 3 the registry maintained in the Village office as recorded in the thandaper account of the petitioner and the third respondent, in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court. First respondent, before whom a complaint in this regard has been lodged by the petitioner as Ext.P5, shall consider the same and see that suitable action is taken thereon in the light of the observations made herein above, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs