VINCENT Vs. AUGUSTINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P6 order passed by the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The case of the petitioner is that, the property having an extent of 4 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 280/8 of Pathirappilly Village (Mararikulam South Panchayath) was originally belonging to the first respondent, which was conveyed by him in favour of his son i.e., the second respondent vide Ext. P5 sale deed dated 14.1.2005. Thereafter, the said property was conveyed to the petitioner by the second respondent as per Ext. P4 sale deed dated 28.4.2005. Pursuant to the execution of the said sale deed, necessary application was preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue authority, whereupon transfer of Registry was effected in accordance with the Transfer of Registry Rules and the petitioner was enjoying the property since then, satisfying the basic tax. It was in the meanwhile that the petitioner was served with Ext. P2 notice dated 18.8.2011 as to the steps being taken by the Maintenance Tribunal for causing the mutation to be cancelled, with reference to the complaint preferred by the first respondent before the Tribunal. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner turned up and filed Ext. P3 objection, also producing copies of the relevant records. However, without any regard to the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law, the Maintenance Tribunal passed Ext. P6 order, cancelling mutation which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

(2.) Despite completion of service of notice ordered as early as on 25.1.2012, no counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be invoked only in respect of the conveyance effected after the commencement of the enactment. Since the Act came into force only w.e.f. 24.8.2008, Exts. P4 and P5 having been effected way back in January and April 2005 do not come within the purview of the Scheme under the above enactment, to have it intercepted in any manner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the said submission, more so when the factual position is not sought to be rebutted from the part of the respondents. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, Ext. P6 will stand set aside and the petitioner is set at liberty to enjoy the property satisfying basic tax on the strength of the mutation already effected in respect of the property covered by Ext. P4.