IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 3824 of 2006(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KOLLELIL REVATHY HOUSE, MALLAPPUZHASSERY, ARANMULA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.GEORGE G. POOTHICOTE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHANCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, PUNNAKKADU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. K.THANKAMMA, W/O.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, ITTITTAMALAYIL HOUSE, KUNNATHUKARA, MALLAPPUZHASSERY, ARANMULA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH R4 BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P. ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P. ALEX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 3824 of 2006(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 1035 OF 1996 DATED 9.9.1996 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOZHENCHERRY. EXT.P2 : COPY OF APPLICATION FORM FOR EFFECTING MUTATION. EXT.P3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.12.2005 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 658/1992 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P5 : COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OS NO. 658 OF 1992 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P6 : COPY OF FINDINGS OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL IN RC NO. 1/96 DATED 18.5.1999. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) : COPY OF O.S. NO. 658/1992 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3824 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased one cent of property with a shop building thereon as per Ext.P1 assignment deed. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for transfer of registry. The said application was rejected by Ext.P3 communication from the 3rd respondent to the petitioner on the ground that the 4th respondent has filed an objection stating that the petitioner does not have possession of the property and the same is subject matter of a civil suit pending before the Civil Court. The 4th respondent is a tenant occupying the shop room on rental basis. According to the petitioner, the suit is for eviction of the 4th respondent from the shop room. The 4th respondent took up a contention in the suit that she is a kudikidappukari in the property. The civil court referred the matter to the Land Tribunal for considering the question as to whether the 4th respondent has kudikidappu rights over the property. That claim of the 4th respondent was negatived, which was accepted by the Civil W.P.(C)No.3824/06 2 Court. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the 4th respondent has no manner of right to object to the application for transfer of registry filed by the petitioner. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayers of the petitioner. According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner has no title to the property. The 4th respondent contests the genuineness of the title of the petitioner under Ext.P1. It is further submitted that the decree of the civil court is pending in appeal filed by the petitioner himself in which the 4th respondent has filed a cross objection. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get transfer of registry in respect of the property, is the contention raised. 3. I have considered the rival contentions. I am of opinion that the 4th respondent cannot raise any contention regarding defect in title of the petitioner in respect of the property since the claim of the petitioner as a kudikidappukari has been negatived by the Land Tribunal and the Civil Court. That finding is not stayed by any authority yet. If she is not a kudikidappukari, she is only a tenant of the shop room who cannot interfere with proceedings under the Transfer of W.P.(C)No.3824/06 3 Registry Rules. In such circumstances, I am of opinion that the 4th respondent has no manner of right to object to the transfer of registry in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 ought not to have considered the objection of the 4th respondent. Since Ext.P3 intimation has been issued rejecting the claim for mutation only on the ground of objection raised by the 4th respondent, which is not sustainable, I quash Ext.P3. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application for transfer of registry filed by the petitioner without reference to the objection of the 4th respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.3824/06 4 W.P.(C)No.3824/06 5