The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Transfer of Registry Rules, particularly Rule 10 and Rule 16, govern the process of transfer of registry and its impact on civil rights and pending civil suits.

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

This writ appeal is preferred by the Petitioners in R.P.No.365 of 2011, which was filed seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.5022 of 2011 dated 17.02.2011. By the judgment in the writ petition, to which the appellants were not parties, the learned Single Judge directed the 2nd Respondent herein to effect change in the registry and accept tax from the legal heirs of the deceased original owner and it was further directed that steps shall be finalized within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Thereafter, the appellants herein approached the learned Single Judge by filing R.P.No.365 of 2011, seeking to review the judgment passed in the writ petition, which was dismissed holding that no interference is called for in the judgment. At the same time, it was observed that it would be open to the parties to approach the concerned Civil Court to establish their rights over the properties and that it will not be fettered consequent on the transfer of registry so effected by the appropriate statutory authority. It is aggrieved by the judgment and the order passed in the Review Petition, the appellants have filed this appeal.

2. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

3. The 1st Respondent's father was the owner of some landed property in Yeroor Village and consequent on the death of the title holder, the 1st Respondent herein along with his brother and sisters approached the 2nd Respondent herein for effecting mutation and payment of land revenue tax. The 2nd Respondent denied the request on the ground that the property is presently in the possession of some others.

4. It was the further case of the 1st Respondent that his father was regularly paying tax till his death and during his life time no other person had claimed right over the property. Thus being apprehensive of the attitude of the 2nd Respondent, they preferred a complaint before the 3rd Respondent Tahsildar, Pathanapuram Taluk, Kollam, who did not take any action pursuant to the complaint. In such circumstances, he was compelled to approach the 4th Respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam. Thereupon, the 4th Respondent called for reports from 2nd and 3rd Respondents and after ascertaining that the 1st Respondent and three others were the only legal heirs of deceased Kesavan, directed the 2nd Respondent to take necessary action on the representation made by the 1st Respondent and others as per Ext.P1 order dated 07.05.2010.

5. It was the further contention of the 1st Respondent that in spite of the direction issued by the 4th Respondent, the 2nd Respondent had not cared to take any action to effect transfer of registry, but, on the other hand, the 2nd Respondent had issued Ext.P2 notice dated 25.11.2010, inviting objections against effecting mutation and receiving tax from the 1st Respondent and others. It was under that circumstances, the 1st Respondent had to approach this Court by filing the writ petition.

6. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the 2nd Respondent to effect transfer of registry and to accept tax from the legal heirs of the deceased original owner. It was also found by the learned Single Judge that the property had devolved upon the 1st Respondent and other legal heirs on the demise of their father and therefore, the application had to be considered enabling the parties concerned to remit the basic tax as per Ext.P1 order passed by the 4th Respondent.

7. Be that as it may, the appellants herein filed the review petition and contended that the judgment in the writ petition passed by the learned Single Judge directing the 2nd Respondent to effect mutation and to accept tax from the legal heirs of the deceased original owner caused irreparable loss and hardships to the review petitioners, who, allegedly, are enjoying the property for the last several years by effecting necessary improvements in the property. It was also contend