The Kerala High Court clarified that authorities are obligated to effect a transfer of registry and change the revenue record or ‘patta’ based on decrees passed by competent civil courts, and that title deeds can be revised in accordance with judicial decisions. The matter came before Justice Viju Abraham in a petition seeking a direction to the District Collector to issue a ‘pokkuvaravu patta’ in the petitioner’s name and to permit him to pay land tax for a property. The petitioner asserted that he had received the property by way of a will from his father, and that he was the absolute owner of the property. The petitioner explained that his father had been conducting a timber depot on the property originally owned by the ancestors of two respondents and had acquired absolute ownership by adverse possession. Litigation had ensued between the petitioner’s father and the respondents’ ancestors regarding ownership, and on appeal, the appellate court held that the petitioner’s father had become the absolute owner by adverse possession. That decision was upheld on further challenge before both the High Court and the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father transferred the property to the petitioner through a will. The petitioner then applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the property, but this was dismissed. The petitioner then approached the High Court, which set aside the dismissal and remitted the matter for reconsideration, resulting in an order favouring the petitioner. The respondents challenged this order before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who allowed the appeal, finding a title dispute and determining that only a competent civil court could decide the issue further. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision application before the District Collector, which was dismissed, and with no other remedy available, he returned to the High Court.
During the proceedings, the respondents argued that the will by which title was purportedly transferred to the petitioner was under challenge in two separate civil court proceedings and contended that the mutation of the revenue record should only be effected after the proceedings were finalized and the validity of the will decided. The High Court examined the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, particularly Rule 2, which provides that the transfer of registry occurs in four scenarios: by voluntary action of the owners, by virtue of decrees of civil courts, by revenue sales, or by succession. The court considered Rules 2 and 16 together and observed that the authorities are bound to effect the transfer of registry based on decrees passed by competent civil courts and that Rule 16 provides a mechanism to make necessary changes in the patta based on a declaration by a competent civil court. The court concluded that in light of the current judicial decision upholding the appellate court’s determination that the petitioner’s father had acquired absolute ownership through adverse possession and that the will validly transferred the property to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to succeed in his plea and the authorities were required to accept payment of tax from him. However, the High Court also clarified that if a competent court later renders a finding in favour of the respondents, they could approach the authorities under the Rules for revising the registry in their names. After considering the relevant legal provisions and the facts of the case, the court disposed of the plea, affirming the principle that transfer of registry and changes in the patta must be effected based on judicially recognized decrees of competent civil courts and can be revised in accordance with subsequent judicial rulings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.