------------------------ The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The dispute in this writ petition is in respect of transfer of registry effected in respect of property situated in 374/4, Block 46 of Mazhuvannoor Village.
2. The dispute now pertains to only 15 cents of land claimed by the 5th respondent. According to him this property was purchased by him in the year 1988 as per document No.4402/1988 of SRO puthen cruz. It seems that 44.20 ares of land including 15 cents alleged to have been purchased by the 5th respondent was the subject matter of Ext.P1 sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner.
3. The RDO on account of the finding that the property has been already sold in favour of the 5th respondent took the decision, that above property cannot be included for transfer of registry in favour of the petitioner and accordingly cancelled the mutation based on Ext.P1. The question is whether 5th respondent has purchased any property prior to Ext.P1 sale deed.
If the 5th respondent has purchased any property prior to Ext.P1 sale deed, even though he may not have effected transfer of registry in his favour, mutation cannot be effected by including the property belonged to the 5th respondent along with the property claimed by the petitioner as per sale deed No.244/2008 of SRO, Puthen cruz. Therefore, the RDO has to find out identify of the property claimed by the 5th respondent. The RDO also has to find out the nature of the right claimed by the 5th respondent as the petitioner has a case that 5th respondent purchased only a share from the co-owner. If the 5th respondent has purchased only a share in the property, he cannot claim any exclusive right over the property. This enquiry is only to the limited purpose of transfer of registry and not to establish or determine right of the property, as any dispute as to the title can only be resolved through the civil court.
4. The petitioner’s further grievance is regarding the finding entered by the RDO in the impugned order to the effect that 15 cents has been included by fraudulent methods in the sale deed by defrauding executent of such document. It is true, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is beyond the scope of any enquiry under the transfer of registry. The transfer registry is only for fiscal purpose, that means for the purpose of revenue records. The title deed has to be verified to that extent. If there is any dispute regarding the possession of the property, the same has to be adjudicated through the civil court. For fiscal purposes, necessary enquiry has to be made based on the title claimed by the both parties. It is based on the title claimed by the parties, the transfer of registry has to be effected, the limited enquiry has to be conducted for the purpose of entering the details in the record.
5. Therefore, Ext.P4 is set aside. The identity of the property claimed by the 5th respondent has to be found out. If identity of the property is found out, and this property does not form part of 44.20 ares claimed by the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed, necessary transfer of registry has to be effected in respect of 15 cents of property in favour of the 5th respondent. However if it is found that 5th respondent had purchased only a share, he cannot claim any exclusive right of the particular portion of the property. Therefore, the remedy available to the parties is to approach the civil court.
In view of the above, Ext.P4 is set aside. Consequently Ext.P6 is also set aside. Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to consider this matter in the light of above within a period of three months. For the purpose of identification, the assistance of Taluk Surveyor also has to be obtained. Needful shall be done after hearing both sides.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/ jm/ A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE