IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 7587 of 2008(C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.V.JACOB, S/O.VARKEY NELLICKAPALLIL HOUSE, THELLAKOM KARA PEROOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.I.GEORGEKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE KOTTAYAM. 4. KOTTAYAM MUNCIPALITY REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY,MUNICIPAL OFFICE KOTTAYAM. 5. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, S/O.MADHAVA KURUP RESIDING AT MADHAVA MANDIRAM, KOTTAYAM P.O. KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO 3 ADVS. SRI.NAVEEN.T FOR R4 SRI.T.S.RAJASENAN FOR R5 SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R4 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R4 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7587 of 2008(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4.8.2000. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR DATED 27.2.2008. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER DATED 24.5.2005 AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS. EXT.P4 - THE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.1153 OF 2005 IN O.S. NO. 208 OF 2005 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P5 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REGISTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.7.2007. EXT.P6 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS RELEASED IN DEEPIKA DAILY DT. 26.2.2008. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 7587 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a room in a shopping complex along with the proportionate undivided interest in the land in which the shopping complex has been constructed, from the 5th respondent, by Ext.P1 sale deed, in the year 2000. The petitioner applied for mutation of the same in his name. The same has been rejected by Ext.P2 on the ground that the property has been subject matter of an attachment in O.S. No. 208 of 2005 of the Sub Court, Kottayam. The petitioner challenging Ext.P2. 2. According to the petitioner, even assuming that the attachment is valid, that does not affect his title to the property. The consequence of the attachment is that the petitioner's rights over the property would be subject to that attachment. That is no reason for refusing to consider his application for mutation is the contention raised by the petitioner. The petitioner's another grievance is that the 4th respondent is not assigning building number to the property. The contention is that without effecting W.P(C) No. 7587 of 2008 -2- mutation, the Municipality is not prepared to assign building number to the shop room. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 4. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner that of the learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the Municipality. The only reason given in the statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent for refusing to effect mutation is that since the property has been attached by the Sub Court and therefore mutation could not be effected. I am of opinion that the attachment as such does not affect the title of the petitioner to the property. Consequence of the attachment is that the petitioner takes the property with the charge created by that attachment. In other words, if the charge is not satisfied, the property would be liable to be proceeded against, in whose name whatsoever the property stands. That being so, I do not think that the 3rd respondent can validly refuse to effect mutation of the petitioner as per his application on the ground that the property is subject to attachment by the court. 5. In the above circumstances, Ext.P2 is quashed. The 3rd W.P(C) No. 7587 of 2008 -3- respondent is directed to pass orders on the application for mutation submitted by the petitioner referred to in Ext.P2, in accordance with the above finding as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs