IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 32857 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.VASANTHA, AGED 60, W/O.LATE C.K.RAJASEKHARAN, RESIDING AT VASANTHALAYAM, T.C.49/740, KARTHIKA NAGAR, MEDAMUKKU, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 009. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 043. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAVCAUD VILLAGE OFFICER, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICER, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023. 4. R.V.SANTHOSHKUMAR, S/O.LATE C.K.RAJASEKHARAN, 'VASANTHALAYAM', T.C.49/740, KARTHIKA NAGAR, MEDAMUKKU, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009. 5. R.V.KUMARISANDHYA, D/O.M.VASANTHA AND W/O.A.BAIJU, RESIDING AT 'SREENIKETHAN', NELLIKKUNNAM.P.O., UMMANNOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691 623. 6. A.BAIJU, S/O.G.ANANDAN ACHARI, RESIDING AT 'SREENIKETHAN', NELLIKKUNNAM.P.O., UMMANNOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691 623. * ADDL.R7 R.V.SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.LATE C.K.RAJASEKHARAN VASANTHALAYAM, MANACAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R7 AS PER ORDER DT 10.8.2011 IN IA.NO.12676/2011) ADV. SRI.MANOJ MOHAN FOR R5-R6 SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR ADDL.R7 SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R4 SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT FOR R5-6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.32857/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED NO.1484/10. P2 COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED NO.1485/10. P3 COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED. P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 24.5.10. P5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 24.5.10. P6 COPY OF THE REPLY DT 31.8.10. P7 COPY OF THE REPLY DT 3.9.10. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32857 of 2010 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner owned certain immovable properties. She executed two settlement deeds in terms of which one property was settled in favour of the fourth respondent and other property was settled in favour of respondents 5 and 6. Subsequently, the petitioner and the fourth respondent executed Ext.P1 deed, cancelling the settlement seed in favour of the fourth respondent. Petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 also executed Ext.P2 deed, cancelling the settlement in favour of respondents 5 and 6. These documents are registered. Subsequently, petitioner, respondents 4, 5 and 6 and other members of the family jointly executed Ext.P3 document, partitioning the property among themselves. Thereupon, they applied for mutation of the property in terms of the allotments as per Ext.P3. Orders were not passed and that led the petitioner to file this W.P.(C) No.32857/2010 : 2 : writ petition. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the property was once settled and the said settlement was cancelled by Exts.P1 and P2. It is stated that the cancellation deed is not confirmed by the civil court and that is why the mutation could not be allowed. In my view, it is unnecessary for the reason that in Exts.P1 and P2, the beneficiaries of the settlement deeds are also parties and all the parties stand by Exts.P1 and P2 even before this Court. In such circumstances and in the absence of any dispute among the parties, who want mutation as per Ext.P3 only, the third respondent could not have declined mutation. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition, quashing Exts.P6 and P7 orders rejecting the petitioner's application, and directing that mutation shall be effected as sought for on the production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/01/09