IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32130 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.P.SALIM,S/O.PAREED,R/AT H.NO.311, KAMMALAYIL(H),PALLARIMANGALAM 686693,KOTHAMANGALAM ERNAKULAM DIST.REP.BY HIS FATHER AND P/A.HOLDER K.M.PAREED,AGED 77 YEARS,S/O.MYDEEN,R/AT H.NO.311, KAMMALAYIL HOUSE,PALLARIMANGALAM 686693, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.C.R.SANISH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE,KOTHAMANGALAM- 686 691. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691. ADDL.R3. MARYKUTTY W/O AUGUSTINE, AGED 66 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE, CHOORNIKKARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, PINCODE 683101. ADDL.R4. PHILOMINA, W/O BABY, KALATHIL HOUSE, ASHOKAPURAM KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, PIN CODE 683101. (ADDL.R3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.10.2010 IN IA 15138/10.) ADV. SRI.C.DILIP FOR ADDL R3 TO 4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32130/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.10.2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA IN OS NO.305/2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 17.9.2010 FILED BY MARYKUTTY AND PHILOMINA IN AS NO.37/2010 BEFORE SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32130 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner purchased the property having an extent of 3.27 cents situated in Sy.No.1034/13/1 of Kothamangalam Village as per sale deed No.5314/10 dated 6/10/10 of the Kothamangalam Sub Registrar's Office. Thereafter he made application dated 11/10/2010 to the 2nd respondent seeking mutation under the Transfer of Registry Rules. Mutation was declined by Ext.P1 order stating that there is a dispute pending in respect of the property and that AS No.37/10 filed by respondents 3 and 4 is pending before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid suit was filed by the respondents claiming title over the property and that by Ext.P2 judgment the suit was dismissed. It is stated that against that judgment, respondents filed appeal with an application to condone 1052 days of delay. It is stated that it is the pendency of the said proceedings which is now relied on to reject the application made by the petitioner for mutation. WPC No. 32130/10 :2 : 3. As at present, the vendors of the petitioner do have title over the property which has been conveyed in his favour. Therefore, his application for mutation is perfectly maintainable irrespective of the pendency of the appeal before the Sub Court. Even if it is assumed that at a later point of time, the appeal is allowed affecting the title of the petitioner, at that stage, it is for the affected party to get rectification of the transfer of registry effected in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the mere pendency of the appeal could not have been a reason for declining the prayer of the petitioner for mutation of the property. In that view, I cannot uphold the view taken in Ext.P1. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext.P1 and directing that the 2nd respondent will pass orders on the application made by the petitioner for mutation of the property covered by sale deed No.5314/10. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, on the production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp