SANTHOSH JACOB Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the application for transfer of registry submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of property admeasuring 20.64 Ares obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The property originally belonged to one V.C. John who obtained the same as per Ext.P2 settlement deed. The said V.C. John and his wife executed Ext.P3 Will bequeathing their properties in favour of children. As per the terms of Ext.P3 Will, the subject property was bequeathed in favour of the 4th respondent. The said V.C. John expired on 21/8/2017. Thereafter, the subject property devolved upon the 4th respondent and later the same was transferred to the petitioner by way of Ext.P1 sale deed. Since Ext.P3 is a joint Will executed by V.C. John and 3rd respondent, 3rd respondent is also made a party to Ext.P1 sale deed. Later application for transfer of registry was submitted and Ext.P5 communication was sent by the 2nd respondent intimating that the transfer of registry cannot be effected since one of the testators of Ext.P3 Will is still alive.

(2.) It is contended that a perusal of Ext.P3 Will would reveal that the property that is involved in Ext.P1 sale deed is one which originally belonged to late V.C. George. The question is whether respondents 1 and 2 have the power to examine the issue regarding title when a property is sought to be mutated based on a registered sale deed. This court in Vijayalakshmi v. Tahsildar, 2019 (2) KLT 373 has held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as follows: "15. This Court is constrained to enter into discussion on the abovesaid issues only because the 1st respondent has cited those aspects as the main ground of rejection in the impugned Ext.P-15 order. Therefore, the said observations and findings made by this Court on those issues are only made from the limited perspective to decide on the matters relating to grant of Transfer of Registry and mutation. 16. As already noted hereinabove, the 1st respondent Tahsildar as the authority concerned with grant of mutation and Transfer of Registry, has no power to examine such vexed issues of title and therefore he has unnecessarily strayed himself into areas which are totally irrelevant and not germane for the purpose of the enquiry for exercising the powers conferred on him. It has been held by this Court in a catena of decisions as in Sainudheen v. State of Kerala (2013 (1) KHC 437, para 13) that the Tahsildar, as the mutation granting authority, cannot decide on the validity of the documents, and the title of the previous owner and that Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules has made the said position abundantly clear. Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules mandates that "the summary, enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes, and it does not affect the title of any person in respect of the lands covered with the decisions in Transfer of Registry cases and the question of legal right is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and pattas could be revised from time to time in accordance with such judicial decisions. It has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts in various decisions as in Surney v. Inder Kaur (1996 (2) KLT OnLine 1114 (SC) = AIR 1996 SC 2823) that mutation of property in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. Therefore in cases like the present one, where the registered land holder concerned has transferred the property, then the transferees/assignees will stand in the shoe of the land holder and by the cumulative impact of S.5(2) and S.3(3)(d), the competent revenue officials are under the bounden and statutory obligation to accept basic land tax from them. Otherwise it will amount to nothing but abdication to statutory obligations and duties of such competent revenue officials, which directly leads to loss of revenue." In view of the above facts and circumstances and the declaration of law in Vijayalakshmi's case cited supra, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of respondents 1 and 2. Accordingly, 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for effecting mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1 deed and pass orders thereon within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. To facilitate a reconsideration of the same, Ext.P5 communication is set aside. Writ petition is disposed of as above.