IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37747 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAIDUKUNJU, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PUDUSSERY, PEZHAKKAPPILLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM, PIN 682030. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN 686661. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.37747 OF 2010(P) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the Ist day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The issue raised in this writ petition is whether Ext.P1, a document executed to which the petitioner is also a party can be treated as a deed of exchange. It is seen that separate properties which belonged to two parties, who are included in Ext.P1 as A party and another property originally belonged to the B Party to Ext.P1. By Ext.P1 document the individual property of the 2nd party came exclusively to first among the A party in Ext.P1 and the properties of both among the A party has been given in exchange to the B party. The question is whether, such an exchange can be an exchange as defined in Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. Transfer of Property Act defines `exchange' as “ when two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, another thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called an exchange.” A plain reading of this provision will shows that there should be mutuality of exchange to call a transaction `exchange' as defined under WPC.No. 37747/2010 :2 : Section 118 of the Act. In this case it is obvious that both the persons who are included as A party to Ext.P1 have parted their property in favour of the B party, only one among those joined as A party gets the property in exchange. Therefore, at least as far as the person who is excluded is concerned, there is no mutuality of exchange. In that sense the view taken in Ext.P2 of the first respondent cannot be faulted. This view is also consistent with the judgment of this court in O.P.No.2805/2003 and WP(c). Nos.36548/2010 & 36587/2010. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/