IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27751 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. AZHAKAPPAN ACHARI, KALLUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KEEZHAYIKONAM, VAMANAPURAM, NELLANADU, NEDUMANGAD. 2. THANKAM, DO. DO. 3. MEENAKSHI, DO. DO. 4. SANTHA, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. NAGAMMA, LAKSHAM VEEDU NO.14, PULIMATH P.O., KARETTA, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 27751 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the District Collector, which is one passed on an application filed by the 2nd respondent herein. Challenge is regarding the mutation in relation to a land having an extent of 26.56 Cents in RS Nos.93/22, 93/20 Nellanadu village in Nedumangad Taluk. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent is stated to be parties to the partition deed. According to the 2nd respondent, she did not join the partition deed. Admittedly, there is a civil suit between the parties now pending before the Additional Munsiff's court, Nedumangad, as OS No.50/07. The issue is as to whether the 2nd respondent has actually executed the partition deed or whether it is a fraudulent document. Ultimately, it can be decided by the civil court either in OS No.50/07, or any other suit which the parties may institute specifically in that behalf. Any finding by the revenue authorities, under the transfer of registry rules obviously would not be binding on them. Both the petitioners and the 2nd respondent will be entitled to raise the contentions independently available to them in the civil suit. W.P.(C)No. 27751 OF 2008 -:2:- In the facts and circumstances of this case and as there is a dispute between the parties pending in a civil suit, it is appropriate that further steps pursuant to Ext.P9 be kept in abeyance for a period of four months. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four months. In the meanwhile, it is open to the petitioners either to seek an amendment in the pending Original Suit or file a fresh suit for a declaration and other appropriate reliefs. It will be open to the petitioner to impugn the proceedings under the transfer of registry rules also in such proceedings before the civil court. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb