IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8027 of 2009(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SATHYAPALAN, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.ACHUKUTTY, RETIRED K.S.E.B. ENGINEER, VELIYANVEETTIL, UDAYAMPEROOR MURI, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.N.C.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE. 3. GEETHADEVI, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN AGED 61 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT KATTIKANDATHIL, UDAYAMPEROOR MURI, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE. 4. JAYADEVI, W/O.MAHESH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, REMARATH HOUSE, KARUVELIPADY, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE. 5. DR.BINDHU SARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.LATE GANGASARAN, RESIDING AT ARACKAL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILEEP MOHAN R4 BY ADV. SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA. R3 & R5 BY ADV. MR.K.P.SREEKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 8027/2009-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE WILL NO.7/1986 S.R.O. TRIPUNITHURA EXECUTED BY KALI. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF KALIKUTTY ISSUED BY TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/02/2007 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAKUNNAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27/02/2009 OF VILLAGE OFFICER MANAKUNNAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 05/04/2008 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, MANAKUNNAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.2105/87 DATED 23/05/1987 ISSUED BY KUTTAN @ SUKUMARAN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/08/1990 IN O.S.286/1988 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.056052 DATED 20/05/2003 FOR Rs.9500/- DRAWN ON S.B.T. TRIPUNITHURA SENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.056051 DATED 20/05/2003 FOR Rs.9500/- DRAWN ON S.B.T. TRIPUNITHURA, SENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.056053 DATED 20/05/2003 FOR Rs.9500/- DRAWN ON S.B.T. TRIPUNITHURA SENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 20/05/2003 SENT BY PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 20/05/2003 SENT BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE RETURNED COVER SENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE A/D/ CARD OF 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE A/C/ CARD OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24/11/2007 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER MANAKUNNAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.8027 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to cause necessary mutation in the Thandaper Register for the whole extent of 47.47 ares of property covered by Ext.P1 Will and also for quashing Ext.P4, an order passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, Ext.P1 is a Will executed by one Kali as early as on 15.1.1986. She made certain conditional dispositions governing 47.47 ares of land mentioned above. She died on 14.12.1986 and Ex.P2 is the death certificate. In terms of the conditional bequest the obligation of the legatee ought to have been discharged within one year of death. According to the respondents, that obligation has not been discharged. WP(c).No.8027/09 2 3. However Ext.P3 application was filed by the petitioner on 27.2.2009 requesting the 2nd respondent to effect mutation of the property in his favour, on which Ext.P4 order was passed requiring the petitioner to produce receipts evidencing discharge of the monetary obligation incorporated in Ext.P1 Will. Petitioner submits that, a suit filed as O.S.No.286/88 by the respondents for declaration of the title and partition was dismissed by the civil court as per Ext.P7 judgment which shows that the suit was dismissed for default. Petitioner also submits that the amount payable in terms of the conditions in Ext.P1 Will was attempted to be discharged by sending Exts.P8, P9 and P10 cheques under the cover of Exts.P11,P12 and P13 respectively and that the same were returned by the addressees refusing to accept the same. It is on this basis petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P4 and direct the 2nd respondent to effect mutation in his favour. 4. A prima facie reading of Ext.P1 Will shows that the bequest in favour of the petitioner is conditional. Since the WP(c).No.8027/09 3 bequest in favour of the petitioner is conditional I cannot find fault with the 2nd respondent in requiring the petitioner to produce the documents proving discharge of those conditions attached to the bequest. If so, Ext.P4 cannot be quashed much less in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore the writ petition fails and is dismissed. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner or respondents prosecuting their respective rights before any authority including the civil court even against Ext.P4. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/