IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8153 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAVEENDRANATHAN,AGED 64 YERARS, S/O.MACHATT MANICKAN,IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM – 688 013. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA – 688 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8153/2011-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN O.S. 630/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.32546/2010 DTD. 26/10/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 31/01/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2009 (2) KHC 602. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2010(4) KLT 215. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8153 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P4 order, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by title deed has been declined, referring to some attachment order passed by the Civil Court. 2. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well. 3. Whether the attachment ordered by a Civil Court can bar the way of the persons like the petitioner enjoying the property by effecting transfer of registery in the revenue records and by remitting the 'basic tax', had come up for consideration before this Court on many an occasion. The law has already been declared by this Court by Ext.P5 judgment reported in “Kuriakose Elias Trust for Communication and Development v Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and others” (2009(2) KHC 602) and “Thulasibhai v State of Kerala” (2010(4) KLT 215), holding the same in the negative and of course in favour of the petitioner. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to sustain Ext.P4, which accordingly is set aside. The respondents are directed to effect the mutation as sought for by the petitioner vide W.P.(C) No.8153/2011 2 Ext.P2, on satisfying the title and such other requirements, by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'four weeks' from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE