IMPORTANT POINT
o Village Officer is mainly arising out of their statutory obligation under the Kerala Land Tax Act & the Rules -The mutation granted by the authorities and the officials who are entrusted in the responsibility of considering mutation request and acceptance of basic land tax, etc., cannot be under the impression that they are the forum for determining the questions of title of the party concerned.
o The competent authority among respondents 2 & 3 cannot reject the said request for mutation, etc., on the present objections raised by R-5 on the scope and ambit of the abovesaid recital in Ext.P-2 Will- Necessary steps in this regard will be completed by the competent authority among respondents 2 & 3, without much delay, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows :

“(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider and act upon Ext P3 application as expeditiously as possible within a time limit to be specified by this Hon'ble court.

(ii) Grant such other and further reliefs which are just and reasonable under the nature and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Allow the petitioner to recover the full costs incurred for the institution and conduct of this writ petition (Civil) from respondent No.3”

2. Heard Sri. Varghese C. Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. A.C. Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. Martin D. Alumkara, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.5. Though notice has been duly served on respondent No.4, there is no appearance for that party. It is common ground that R-4 is supporting the cause of the petitioner and presumably it is on this account that he may not entered appearance despite service of notice.

3. The petitioner herein claims to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property having an extent of 5 cents (2.02 Ares), comprised in survey No.114/1(re-survey No.24/15) of block No.22 of Amballur Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam Revenue District. On the basis of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.1131/2017 dated 20.07.2017 of SRO, Mulanthuruthy executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the 4th respondent had obtained title of the said property covered by Ext.P-1, on the basis of Ext.P-2 registered Will No.278/III/2008 dated 10.11.2008 of SRO, Mulanthuruthy executed by the father of respondents 4 & 5. After the death of the father of respondents 4 & 5, the properties allotted to R-4 & R-5, as per schedules B & A respectively of Ext.P-2 registered Will has been duly mutated in their respective names and it is also stated that the basic land tax has also been accepted from the respondents 4 & 5 in respect of the properties allotted to them, as per B & A schedules of Ext.P-1 Will respectively. Pursuant to the conveyance of a portion of item No.1 of ‘B’ Schedule property of Ext.P-2 Will made by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P-3 application dated 19.08.2017 before the competent authority among respondents 2 & 3, for grant of mutation of the said property as per Ext.P-1, in favour of the petitioner and also for acceptance of basic land tax from the petitioner in respect of the said property.

4. It appears that the 5th respondent has raised an objection before respondents 2 & 3 stating that mutation may not be made, in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P-1, in as much the execution and registration of Ext.P-1 sale deed is against the expressed recitals made by the testator in internal page No.2 of Ext.P-2 registered Will, which reads as follows :

“xxx”

The English version of the said recital is as follows:

“After my demise, if Thomas (R-4) is to execute document in relation to items 1 & 2 of ‘B’ schedule, then my son John @ John.P.Varghese (R-5) shall join with Thomas in such execution of the document and documents executed by Thomas without junction and participation of John will be void and ineffective.”

5. On the basis of the said recital in Ext.P-2 Will, R-5 would contend that R-4 could have validly executed any documents in the matter of conveyance, etc. or any of the portions of items 1 & 2 of ‘B’ Schedule of Ext.P-2 Will only with the junction and involvement of the 5th respondent and that in the instant case, Ext.P-1 registered sale deed has been executed by R-4 in favour of the petitioner, without the junction and involvement of the 5th respondent in any manner and that therefore, the said conveyance is against the recital made by the testator in the said request in favour of R-4, etc.

6. Before getting into th