IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No.1813 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.25720/2008 DATED 26/08/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:- ------------------------------------------ 1. M.G.KESAVA PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS, PAYYAMPALLIL, CHAMBAKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. GEORGE KURIAN, AGED 69 YEARS, THEKKEDATH PEEDIKAYIL, EDATHUA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISRAR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, PULINKUNNU. 3. JOMY MATHEW, AGED 39, S/O.MATHEW, KOOTTUMMEL HOUSE, PULINKUNNU VILLAGE. 4. NEDUMUDI VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.2331, NEDUMUDI, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1813 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition. They had filed the writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 “not to register any document touching the properties covered by Exts.P1, P4 and P5 documents without any order from a competent court after adjudicating the claims of the 4th respondent with the petitioners on the party array”. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the prayers sought for cannot be granted for the reason that respondent No.4 is not amenable to writ jurisdiction since it is not a State or other authority as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution. 3. The primary contention raised by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that they had got assignment of the immovable property covered under Ext.P1 registered document from respondent No.3. The said property was allegedly obtained by respondent No.3 in a court sale. Appellants claimed that they are in possession of the said property demised in their favour, ever since the assignment. 4. It is the admitted position that respondent No.4 had W.A.No.1813 of 2008 2 obtained an ex parte decree in respect of the same property in a suit for specific performance. Appellants allege that respondent No.4 is apparently trying to get the property registered in their name on the strength of that ex parte decree. According to the appellants, respondent No.4 has in fact filed Ext.P6 application before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Alappuzha under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale in favour of respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if respondent No.4 is allowed to get the property registered in their name at this stage, it may create some complications at a later stage, if ultimately the said application happens to be dismissed by the Subordinate Judge's Court. 5. We are unable to comprehend the rationale behind the said contention. If and when the competent civil court takes a decision in the matter, necessarily it will have a binding effect on the appellants as well as respondent No.4. Therefore, even assuming that respondent No.4 gets the property registered in their name, pending Ext.P6 application, we do not find any reason or basis for the apprehension now raised by the appellants. In any view of the matter, the prayer made by the appellants cannot be granted, and that too in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellants ought to have approached the civil W.A.No.1813 of 2008 3 court before which Ext.P6 application is stated to be pending, if at all they had any grievance in the matter. 6. Though the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that respondent No.4 was not amenable to writ jurisdiction, we are of the view that the writ petition should have been dismissed for the reason stated by us in the earlier part of this judgment. 7. We do not find any reason to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns