IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27774 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- RAJAMMA,AGED 76 YEARS, D/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, MARANJERY LAKSHMI VILASAM, NEDUMBASERY PO, CHANGAMMANADU,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 011. 2. THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 101. 3. GIRIJA,MARANJERY KRISHNA VILASAM, NEDUMBASSERY PO,CHANGAMMANADU,ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 585. 4. THE TAHSILDAR,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 101. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, NEDUMBASSERY PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683585. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27774 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T It is stated that Ext.P2 gift deed was executed by the petitioner gifting the property mentioned therein to the 3rd respondent and that subsequently, the same was cancelled by Ext.P3. It would appear that, later on, request was made to the authorities not to effect mutation in favour of the donee. That request was turned down by Ext.P9. Petitioner submitted Ext.P12 representation to the 1st respondent. There was no response. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 2. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Revenue Divisional Officer under Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, which the petitioner has not done. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P9. 3. Apart from this, it is also seen from the pleadings that there are several litigations between the petitioner on the one side and the 3rd respondent on the other side at different forums WPC No. 27774/10 :2 : including this Court. Therefore, if at all the petitioner wants to restrain the 3rd respondent from getting the property mutated in her favour, it is for the petitioner to seek orders from the Court where the civil disputes are pending. I am not persuaded to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp