Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. This intra court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned single Judge dated 13.10.2016 while disposing of W.P.(C) No.9498 of 2016.

2. The third respondent, the sister of the appellant, was served with notice of proceedings in this appeal. She has chosen not to appear, as was the case in the writ proceedings. The fourth respondent has appeared through counsel. With their consent, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

3. The whole controversy is with regard to application of the appellant for mutation in respect of about 11 acres of land which earlier stood in the name of his mother being Karuthedathu Kainikkara Meenakshi Amma. According to the appellant, during the life time of mother itself, there was a partition amongst the family members. In the partition, the third respondent relinquished her share. The partition deed was registered, i.e., Exhibit P1. This partition deed having been executed, the appellant made an application before the Tahsildar to effect mutation accordingly. The 3rd respondent approached the Tahsildar and sought for setting aside the partition deed. At the first instance, the Tahsildar rejected the objection filed by the third respondent on the ground that it was a registered partition deed and no objection could be heard. The same was confirmed by the Sub Collector, Perintalmanna, as well. After sometime, she again filed an application before the Tahsildar. This time, strangely enough, the Tahsildar entertained her application and sought opinion from a Government Pleader. The Government Pleader opined that as the registered partition deed was being disputed and so long as the dispute is not decided as between the parties, mutation cannot be effected according to the partition deed. This is what brought the appellant to the writ court.

4. While the writ petition was pending, the fourth respondent filed an application for impleadment. He set up a story that in 1987, the appellant/writ petitioner being power of attorney holder of his mother, who was the beneficial owner of the entire 11 acres of land sold that land to his father, i.e., father of the fourth respondent. Therefore, neither the appellant nor his sister or any other family members had a right to get mutation of the property in their name. As noted above, even though the impleadment application was opposed by the appellant, it was allowed on the day when final orders were pronounced by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge held in substance that so long as the disputes remain unresolved, the mutation as was obtaining before would continue and there would be no change pursuant to the application made by the appellant. These two issues have brought the appellant to this Court in this intra court appeal.

5. We would first, like to deal with the impleaded fourth respondent. The fourth respondent's case is that the appellant, acting as his mother's power of attorney holder, had sold the entire 11 acres of land to the fourth respondent's father. This was done in the year 1987. His submission would be that accordingly the appellant or the appellant's mother or sister had no property left, no title in that proper subsisted with them to see mutation. Therefore, rightly the Tahsildar refused to effect mutation. He further pleaded that in 2016, he has also instituted a suit for cancellation of Exhibit P1 on the basis of 1987 sale deed, in favour of his father. On the other hand, the appellant submits that in 1988, a partition suit was filed in respect of partitioning the 11 acres of land of the appellant's mother, which land is being claimed by the impleaded fourth respondent. In that suit, fourth respondent's father was also made a defendant. The suit was contested and it was decreed for partition as amongst the appellant, his mother and other family members to the exclusion of the father of the fourth respondent. That suit or the decree in