V.K. Mohanan vs The Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 21154 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 27480 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:

    1     V.K. MOHANAN,
          VALIYAPARACKAL , KOTHALA KARA, PAMPADY

    2     SABU GOPAL, KARIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTHALA P.O., PAMPADY

          BY ADVS.
          LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
          SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS


RESPONDENTS:


    1     THE TAHSILDAR,
          TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY-686 101

    2     THE VILLAGE OFFICER-VAZHOOR,
          VILLAGE OFFICE-VAZHOOR, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, VAZHOOR,
          KOTTAYAM-686 504

    3     SATHEESHKUMAR.K.T.
          S/O. GOPALAN, KALLOORATH HOUSE, VAZHOOR P.O.,
          KODUNGOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 504

    4     SALIJA
          W/O.SATHEESHKUMAR, KALLOORATH HOUSE, VAZHOOR P.O.,
          KODUNGOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 504

    5     MEKHA SATHEESH
          D/O. SATHEESH, KALLOORATH HOUSE, VAZHOOR P.O.,
          KODUNGOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 504

    6     MIDHUN SATHEESH,
          SO. SATHEESH, KALLOORATH HOUSE, VAZHOOR P.O.,
          KODUNGOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 504

          BY ADV SRI.A.K.ALEX
 WP(C) NO. 27480 OF 2020
                                2




          SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 27480 OF 2020
                                    3



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that they are the legatees of Ext.P1 Will,

as per which, the extents of property involved in this case have

become vested in them.

2. According to the petitioners, when they approached

the 1st respondent - Tahsildar, with a request for Transfer of

Registry of the property in question in their names, it was refused

to be done saying that there is an order of attachment over it, at

the instance of the 4th respondent, obtained from a competent

Family Court.

3. The petitioners assert that even if there is any such

attachment, their request for Transfer of Registry cannot be

interdicted by the 1st respondent, because same runs with the

property and it is upto them to prove that said order will not

obtain any effect on account of the various circumstances and

factors, which they can impel in their defence. WP(C) NO. 27480 OF 2020

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Surya

Binoy, affirmed that the order of attachment is dated 18.12.2019

and thus argued that petitioners cannot seek Transfer of Registry

of the property in their names, since the Will in question,

admittedly, took effect much after that. She, therefore, prayed that

this writ petition be dismissed.

5. Sri.A.K.Alex - learned counsel appearing for the 4th

respondent, adopted the submissions of the learned Senior

Government Pleader, saying that even if this Court is to find in

favour of the petitioners, it is indubitable that the order of

attachment will continue on the property and that his client will be

in a position to enforce it, since the date on which the Will took

effect is much after the date of the said order obtained by his

client. He also, therefore, prayed that the reliefs in this writ

petition be not acceded to.

6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, there can be

little doubt that, even if there is an attachment over the property in WP(C) NO. 27480 OF 2020

question, its Transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioners

cannot be interdicted because, as rightly stated by Sri.A.K.Alex -

learned counsel for the 4th respondent, same runs with the

property and not against the petitioners per se. Obviously,

therefore, even if the Transfer of Registry is effected in favour of

the petitioners, they will have to defend the order of attachment

appropriately and it is only if they are able to appositely establish

that said order will not bind the property, will they obtain any

benefit, including transferring or dealing with it without

impediment.

Keeping the afore in mind, I allow this writ petition and

direct the 1st respondent - Tahsildar, to transfer Registry of the

property in question in favour of the petitioners, however, subject

to the order of attachment obtained by the 4th respondent.

Needless to say, petitioners will be at full liberty to assail the

order of attachment obtained by the 4th respondent in terms of law

and if they are able to have it vacated or to obtain a declaration WP(C) NO. 27480 OF 2020

that same does not apply to them or to the property, then alone

they will be in a position to deal with it in terms of law further.

In view of my afore directions, Ext.P4 will stand set aside,

so as to pave way for the afore directions to be given effect.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/20/10/2021 WP(C) NO. 27480 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27480/2020

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE WILL DEED DATED 3.12.2019 NO.96/2019 OF THE VAZHOOR SUB REGISTRY

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF GOPALAN (FATHER IN LAW OF THE PETITIONERS) ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, ARPOOKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF KUNJAMMA ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATH ,KOOROPPADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.280/2020 DATED 12.10.2020 PASSED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHOOR