IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 332 of 2008(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHMAN, T.C.NO.49/397(1), KUTHUKALLUMMOOTTIL, MANACADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NABEEZATH BEEVI, W/O.ABDUL RAHMAN OF -DO-, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SEETHA, W/O.P.M.SENAN, 'MIDHILA', MODEL ENGINEERING ROAD, THRIKKAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-21. 3. MR.P.M.SENAN OF -DO-, -DO-. 4. SURENDRAN, S/O.VELUKKUTTY PANICKER, 'SARADHALAYAM', NERA KAMALESWARAM JUNCTION, MANACADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SARATH CHANDRAN, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, 'SUSHANTHI', K.P.9/496, CHETTIKKUNNU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN FOR R2 & 3 SMT. P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 332 of 2008(M) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 -TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1603 OF 2005 DATED 23.03.2005 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SUB REGISTRY. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 3.5.2005 ISSUED BY THE KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBARANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.3.2005 ISSUED BY THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SUB REGISTRY RELATING TO THE PERIOD FROM 01.1.1990 TO 28.02.2005. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF APPROVED PLAN DATED 20.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF PERMIT DATED 20.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 04.03.2006 IN O.S.NO. 339 OF 2006 BEFORE THE MINSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 15.3.2007 IN O.S. NO. 339 OF 2006 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PETITION NO. B-5277/2006 DATED 4.3.2006 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 23.09.2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1463/71. EXT.R2(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF MUTATION IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(c) - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 8.8.2005 TO THE RDO TRIVANDRUM (RESPONDENT NO.1) /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P (C) .No. 332 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are respondents before the Revenue Divisional Officer in Appeal No. B-5277/06 filed by the 2nd respondent under the Transfer of Registry Rules. The 2nd respondent claims to be the owner of certain properties in respect of which the petitioners obtained mutation allegedly with the help of invalid documents. The 2nd respondent wanted the mutation in favour of the petitioners herein cancelled and moved the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules. Being unsuccessful before the original authority, the petitioners filed Ext.P8 appeal which is pending consideration before the 1st respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer. The contention of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent herself filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram as O.S.No.339/2006 for declaration of title in respect of the property. The W.P (C) .No. 332 of 2008 - 2 - contention is that in view of Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, the remedy of the 2nd respondent lies in first getting the suit disposed of and thereafter to approach the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules to make appropriate changes in the Registry. The petitioners submit that taking these contentions, they have filed Ext.P9 preliminary objection before the 1st respondent and without considering that preliminary objection the 1st respondent is proceeding with the appeal. The petitioners therefore seek the following relief: “ To issue a writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent not to take any decision on Exhibit P8 Appeal till a final decision is made on the civil suit, O.S.No.339/2006 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram.” 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to her, the suit and the proceedings under the Transfer of Registry Rules are separate proceedings and it is not necessary to stall the disposal of the appeal till the disposal of the suit. She therefore seeks dismissal of the W.P (C) .No. 332 of 2008 - 3 - writ petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that at this juncture this Court should not interfere with the matter. A quasi-judicial authority vested with jurisdiction under the Transfer of Registry Rules is seized of the appeal. He is perfectly competent to consider all objections of the petitioners in respect of the appeal and pass appropriate orders. It is not necessary that he should consider the appeal piecemeal. In fact generally courts discourage piecemeal adjudication by quasi-judicial authorities. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the 1st respondent should first pass a preliminary order on the preliminary objection and then only he shall proceed further does not appeal to me. The 1st respondent is perfectly free to hear all objections and to pass a final order dealing with all contentions in accordance with the Transfer of Registry Rules. W.P (C) .No. 332 of 2008 - 4 - Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs