Kerala High Court
Shaji K.E vs The Tahasildar on 17 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 13126 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SHAJI K.E.
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. LATE IBRAHIM RAWTHER, KANDAMKULAM HOUSE,
VAIPUR P. O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV C.S.MANILAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689585.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KOTTANGAL VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTANGAL, PATHANAMTHITTA -
686 547.
3 MUHAMMED KUNJU
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. LATE IBRAHIM RAWTHER, KANDAMKULAM HOUSE, VAIPUR P.
O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA - 686 547.
4 RAMLA SHAJI
W/O. SHAJAHAN, MEPRATH HOUSE, MUKKADA P. O.,
KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYM - 686 507.
5 SHYLAJA SULAIMAN
W/O. SULAIMAN, VELLARAYIL HOUSE, ALAPRA P. O., MANIMALA
VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM - 686 543.
BY ADV SMT.MINI.V.A.
SRI ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13126 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims title over certain properties covered by
Ext.P1 and approached the 1st respondent for its Transfer of
Registry in his favour, but alleges that it has not been considered
because of Ext.P4 objection raised by respondents 4 and 5.
2. The petitioner says that, as is evident from Ext.P6, the
party respondents are opposing his request for Transfer of Registry
solely for the reason that they have filed a suit for partition,
namely O.S.No.105/2020, on the files of the Munsiff's Court,
Thiruvalla and that, therefore, the petitioner's request be not
considered until it is finally decided.
3. The petitioner says that the objections in Exts.P6 are
untenable because he had approached the same Court by filing
O.S.No.83/2020 and had obtained Ext.P4 order of injunction
against the party respondents, which has lead them to file a suit
solely as a counter blast. The petitioner says that, in any event of
the matter, until there are interdictory orders issued from the
WP(C) NO. 13126 OF 2020
competent Civil Court, the 1st respondent cannot refuse Transfer of
Registry of the property in his favour based on Ext.P1.
4. I have heard Sri.Nidhees.S - learned counsel for the
petitioner; Smt.V.A.Mini - learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5
and Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan - learned Senior Government
Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
5. Smt.V.A.Mini affirmed that her clients have already
filed O.S.No.105/2020 before the Civil Court for a declaration
that Ext.P1 Will is a void document and for a consequential
partition of the property covered by it. She submitted that,
therefore, until such time as the Civil Court decides the said suit,
the Transfer of Registry of the property in question in favour of
the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 is impermissible. She,
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
6. Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan - learned Senior
Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner's request for
Transfer of Registry has not been rejected, but that the 1 st
respondent - Tahsildar, is only considering the objections of the
WP(C) NO. 13126 OF 2020
party respondents. He submitted that if this Court is so inclined,
said Authority can complete the enquiry into their objections and
issue appropriate orders within a time frame.
7. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is
indubitable that merely because a suit is pending at the instance of
the party respondents, the 1st respondent cannot refuse Transfer of
Registry based on Ext.P1 in favour of the petitioner. It is only if
there are orders of interdiction against such action from a
competent Court, can the said Authority do so.
8. In the case at hand, the party respondents have only
approached the 1st respondent through Exts.P6 notifying him that
they have filed a suit. This, in my firm view, will not stand in the
way of the 1st respondent acceding to the request of the petitioner.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and
direct the 1st respondent to effect Transfer of Registry of the
property covered by Ext.P1 in favour of the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
WP(C) NO. 13126 OF 2020
Needless to say, if the party respondents are able to obtain
favourable orders in the meanwhile from the competent Civil
Court, they are at liberty to approach the competent Authority,
including the 1st respondent, for appropriate action; in which
event, my afore directions will stand modulated, adhering to the
same.
It further goes without saying that notwithstanding my
directions afore, if the Civil Court is to issue order or decree in
favour of the party respondents, then the competent Authorities
will take all necessary action in terms of it in future.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS/17/09/2021
WP(C) NO. 13126 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13126/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL DATED
13.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
10.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE
OFFICER DATED 13.2.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN
O.S.83/2020 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT,
THIRUVALLA DATED 25.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 3.3.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF RESPONDENTS 4
AND 5 DATED 17.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF PETITIONER
DATED 17.03.2020.
