RAMESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision of the 4th respondent Village Officer as per Ext.P-3 dated 12.9.2018 whereby he has refused to mutate the property of the petitioner on the ground that a civil suit instituted by the 5 th respondent as against the petitioner is pending. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.Nidhi Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 1 to 4. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to contesting respondent No.5 will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The petitioner has purchased the subject property comprised in Sy.No.734/2 & 734/3 Thirumukkulam Village, Chalakudi Taluk, Thrissur Revenue District from the 5 th respondent as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed. It is stated that the 5th respondent is the father of the petitioner. According to the petitioner at the instigation of certain other family members, the 5th respondent (father) had filed Original Suit O.S.No.105/2018 arraying the petitioner as defendant before Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, praying for cancellation of registered sale deed as per Ext.P-1 herein in which the said Civil Court has passed Ext.P-2 interim order in I.A.No.1467/2018 in O.S.No.105/2018 on 23.6.2018 restraining the respondent therein (the petitioner herein) from committing waste and mischief in the plaint 'A' schedule property therein and from constructing new boundary, obstructing the peaceful residence of the applicant therein in the I.A. (R-5 herein) and his family in the house in the plaint schedule properties, from creating any document in respect of the plaint 'B' schedule property or encumbering the same until further orders etc. The petitioner's application for mutation of the subject property covered by Ext.P-1 deed, has now been rejected by the 4 th respondent Village Officer as per impugned Ext.P-3 order dated 12.9.2018 stating that the said request of mutation cannot be considered in view of the pendency of the abovesaid civil suit filed by the 5th respondent against the petitioner etc.