Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P2 by which his request for mutation of the property purchased by him as per Sale Deed No. 2188/2011 of Mala Sub Registry Office, has been refused by the 2nd respondent without stating any specific reason. 2. According to the petitioner, on further enquiry, it was understood that the son of the transferee has filed a suit challenging transfer as O.S. No. 224/2011, which came to be dismissed. The petitioner also relies upon Ext. P4, a communication issued from the Munsiff's Court, Kodungaloor with reference to the aforesaid suit stating that the injunction granted against certain item of property has been vacated. The petitioner therefore submitted a fresh application along with Ext. P3 judgment and still no orders have been passed and accordingly he has to approach this Court.
2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that another suit O.S. No. 1451/2000 has been filed by the transferee's son and execution proceedings are pending in the said case.
3. It is clear from Ext. P1 that the petitioner has purchased the property in question from one Kesavan. As W.P(C) No. 1999 of 2014 -: 2 :-
long as there is no prohibitory order from any court of law to effect mutation, the property is entitled to mutation in his name. Pendency of a civil suit will not preclude the revenue authorities in effecting mutation. Mutation is basically for fiscal purposes and to collect tax from the owner of the property who is in possession.
4. As matters stand now, since the petitioner has acquired right in respect of the property from Kesavan, who is the previous title holder, the revenue authorities are liable to effect mutation, which will, of course, be subject to the result of any directions issued by a civil court. If, on a later date, it is found that Kesavan has no title to the property and it vests with another person and the sale deed Ext. P1 is found to be invalid, it shall be always open for the revenue authorities to make necessary correction in the mutation entries in terms of the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext. P1 in the name of the petitioner, which shall be done within a period of W.P(C) No. 1999 of 2014 -: 3 :-
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be subject to any decision that may be taken in any pending civil proceedings.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/