PARK RESIDENCY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is against Ext. P12 order passed by the District Collector rejecting the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under the Transfer of Registry Rules. The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner, which is known as M/s. Park Residency. The partnership firm was initially named as M/s. Maria Residency which has been conducting hotel business. Four items of land, viz. 4.5 ares and 0.52 ares in Sy. No. 339/6, 1.71 ares in Sy. No. 339/7 and 0.58 ares in Sy. No. 335/1 were purchased in the name of the partnership as per sale deed No. 2155/03, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P9. After the purchase, mutation was effected and Thandaper No. 6185 of Ernakulam Village was allotted.

(2.) Two new partners were inducted and the partnership was reconstituted. After reconstitution, the firm is known as M/s. Park Residency. Ext. P6 is the copy of the Deed of Reconstitution of partnership and Ext. P7 is the copy of the certificate containing registration in the name of the new partnership with effect from 17.4.2010. Ext. P8 is the copy of the deed of amendment to the partnership.

(3.) The Tahsildar was approached by filing an application for mutation in favour of M/s. Park Residency, which was rejected by Ext. P1 order. The same was challenged before the District Collector by filing a revision petition and the final order is produced as Ext. P12. The authorities have taken the view that the application for mutation cannot be allowed as there is no document of conveyance of property and what is involved is the reconstitution of the partnership by inducting two partners and change of Firm's name and the same do not come within the purview of Transfer of Registry Rules. For effecting transfer of registry, voluntary transfer is required.