WILSON GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's mother, the 5th respondent, executed Ext.P1 settlement deed settling the property mentioned therein in favour of the petitioner. It would appear that based on the above, petitioner got the property mutated in his name and tax was also being remitted. Subsequently, petitioner came to know that, by Ext.P5 document No.3192/1997 executed on December, 1997, his mother cancelled Ext.P1 settlement. On that basis, Ext.P7 order has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the mutation as well. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P5 document cancelling Ext.P1 settlement deed and also the Revenue Divisional Officer's order, Ext.P7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Pavakkal Noble John and Another v. Kerala State and Others (2010(3) KHC 879) to canvass his contention on the validity of Ext.P5.

(2.) Having regard to the fact that Ext.P5 is a registered document executed by the 5th respondent, the petitioner's WPC No. 30395/10 mother, I feel that the relief is one which the petitioner will have to seek in a suit which he will have to file before the appropriate civil court.

(3.) In so far as the validity of Ext.P7 is concerned, although it is an order which is consequential in nature, in my view, statute itself, viz., Rule 18(4) of the Transfer of Registry Rule provides for remedy to him. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to move the civil court impugning the validity of Ext.P5, the District Collector impugning the validity of Ext.P7 and without expressing anything on the merits, this writ petition is disposed of.