ANTONY DOMINIC
THULASIBHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
1. Petitioner purchased a property as per Ext.P4 sale deed. When she obtained Ext. P5 non encumbrance certificate, no encumbrance in respect of the property was mentioned in this document. However, when she applied for mutation, that was rejected by Ext. P1 on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings are pending.
2. She filed an appeal and that was rejected by Ext. P3. As already seen, the reason stated for rejection of her request for mutation is the pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings.
3. It is stated that the petitioner's vendor had availed of loan from the Central Bank of India and had committed default. It is stated that the Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the defaulter, which is the reason stated in Exts.P1 and P3.
4. Petitioner also submits that when recovery proceedings were initiated, the vendor applied to the Government and had obtained Ext. P6 order, enabling him to discharge the liability in 45 instalments and according to her, remittances is being made also. It is therefore stated that the rejection for effecting mutation is illegal.
5. Learned Government Pleader relied on the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.