Kerala High Court
Zeenath Haroon vs The State Of Kerala on 7 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10779 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ZEENATH HAROON
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.HAROON RASHEED, LABBAI HOME, KADAYKAD MURY,
KURAMBALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PANDALAM P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 501.
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
SRI.KRUSCH P.A
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC
OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 33
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 VILLAGE OFFICER, KURAMBALA VILLAGE
PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 501.
SR.GP. - SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10779 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be the bona fide purchaser of
the property covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed. She says that,
however, when she made an application, dated 08.02.2021,
for Transfer of Registry of the same in her name, it has been
refused to be acted upon by the second respondent stating
that there is an order of attachment over it at the instance of
a third party.
2. The petitioner asserts that the attachment in question
was effected on the property only on 10.03.2021 and
therefore, that it is now well settled that the same cannot
stand in the way of the second respondent transferring its
Registry in her favour. She, therefore, prays that the second
respondent be directed to consider her application and effect
Transfer of Registry in her name, based on Ext.P1 title
document.
3. I have heard Smt.Bincy George, representing
Sri.M.A.Joseph Manavalan and Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan,
the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted
that if the facts as stated by the petitioner are true, then
WP(C) NO. 10779 OF 2021
certainly the second respondent may be obligated to effect
Transfer of Registry in her favour. He, however, submitted
that the second respondent has a legitimate suspicion that
the sale itself has been effected in favour of the petitioner by
the original owner in order to avoid proceedings against him
at the instance of party - creditors. He, therefore, prayed
that the second respondent be permitted to enquire into the
matter and take an appropriate decision on the application of
the petitioner for Transfer of Registry of the property in her
name.
5. When I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader
as afore, the fact remains that the only jurisdiction which is
available to the second respondent is to verify whether the
property had been sold prior to the date of attachment or
otherwise. If the sale is found to be prior to the order of
attachment, then certainly, he will be obligated to effect its
Transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner; but if it is
found otherwise, then to reject it. However, he cannot
enquire as to the transaction between the original owner and
the debtor, which has led to Ext.P2 attachment order issued
by the competent Civil Court.
WP(C) NO. 10779 OF 2021
Resultantly, I allow this writ petition with a direction to
the second respondent to consider the application for
Transfer of Registry made by the petitioner with respect to
the property covered by Ext.P1, assessing whether the order
of attachment is prior to it or after the sale; thus leading to
an appropriate order thereon, after affording an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 10779 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10779/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.198/2021 OF
PANDALAM SRO.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2021 IN
I.A.NO.2/2021 IN LAR NO.2/2007 OF THE SUB
COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.
