Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J.
Babu R – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary To The Government, Department Of Revenue and ors. – Respondents
Wp(C) No. 21759 Of 2024, WP(C) NO. 22548 OF 2024, WP(C) NO. 23763 OF 2024, WP(C) NO. 25731 OF 2024, WP(C) NO. 38399 OF 2024
Decided On : 14-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.P.Priyeshkumar, Vinodkumar.S, S.Vinod Bhat, Anagha Lakshmy Raman, V.Namitham B.Mohanlal, P.S.Preetha, Aswin V. Nair, Karthik J Sekhar, Abijith M., Jayaprabha Arjun, Blessy Mary Sebastian, Praveena T., Lindons C.Davis, E.U.Dhanya, V.A.Ajay, N.S.Shamila, Chinju P. Joyies, Sanil Jose, Bonny Benny, P.G.Sudheesh, Amaljith,
For the Respondent: Jacob Sebastian, Winston K.V, Anu Jacob, Bharath Krishnan G., Smt.Vidya Kuriakose, Gp, V.M.Krishnakumar, Maya M., Renjith Thampan (Sr.)

IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue Officers cannot adjudicate on the genuineness of Wills; legal heirs must be notified before transferring registry based on a Will.

Headnote:
(A) Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 - The court examined the procedure for transfer of revenue registry due to testamentary succession, emphasizing that Revenue Officers lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the genuineness of Wills. The court mandated that legal heirs must be notified before any transfer based on a Will. (Paras 14, 15, 20)
(B) Wills - The court reiterated that the onus of proving a Will lies with the propounder, and strict adherence to statutory requirements for execution and attestation is essential for validity. (Paras 12, 13)
(C) Guidelines - The court formulated guidelines for Revenue Officers to follow when considering applications for transfer of registry based on Wills, ensuring due process and protection of legal heirs' rights. (Paras 17, 21)

Legal Category Hierarchy

JUDGMENT :

Kauser Edappagath, J.

This bunch of writ petitions deal with the scope and nature of the enquiry to be undertaken by the Revenue Officers under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘TR Rules’) regarding the transfer of revenue registry (mutation) due to testamentary succession.

2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are legatees claiming right over the property on the strength of the Will executed by the testator/testatrix in their favour. They are aggrieved by the rejection/non-consideration of their applications for effecting mutation of the property covered by the Will in their favour by the Village Officer concerned either on the ground of the pendency of the civil suit challenging the Will or on the ground of the objection of the natural legal heirs.

3. I have heard Sri.Priyesh Kumar M.P., Sri.Vinod Bhat S., Sri.Mohanlal B., Sri.Lindons C. Davis and Sri.Sanil Jose, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent in WP(C) No.21759/2024, Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in WP(C) No.22548/2024 and Smt.Vidya Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, briefly stated, are as follows;

(i) The Wills relied on by the petitioners would prima facie show that the properties covered by the Wills were bequeathed in their favour and hence, the Revenue Officer concerned is bound to mutate the property in their favour irrespective of the objection raised by the legal heirs of the testator/testatrix.

(ii) The mutation of the property and acceptance of land tax will not, by itself, either create or extinguish the title nor has it any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation has been effected to pay the land tax in question. Therefore, even if there is any dispute regarding the title of the property, there is no reason for not accepting the land tax. Reliance was placed on Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Others (1996) 6 SCC 223 .

(iii) The pendency of the civil suit can never be a bar for mutating the property or accepting the tax unless specifically restrained by an order passed by the Court. Reliance was placed on Sudan K.K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (2013 (4) KHC 201) and Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer and Others (2015 KHC 3676).

(iv) It is not obligatory for the Revenue Officers under the TR Rules to issue notices to the legal heirs when mutation is sought on the basis of the Will.

5. Per Contra, the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, briefly stated, are as follows;

(i) Where the genuineness of the Will is disputed, transfer of registry is not contemplated under the TR Rules until the rights of parties are adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. Reliance was placed on Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2021 KHC OnLine 6527).

(ii) When the transfer of registry is claimed on the strength of Will, it cannot be effected without notice to the natural heirs of the legator as per the relevant law of succession. Reliance was placed on Korah M.P. (Dr.) and Others v. Dr.Mrs.Rachel Zacharia alias Rahel and Others, (2018 (1) KHC 365).

(iii) The authority vested with the jurisdiction to effect transfer of registry under TR Rules has no power to examine and adjudicate the vexed issues of title.

6. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the TR Rules, which deal with the transfer of revenue registry in the State of Kerala, do not have a specific provision that governs the transfer of registry due to testamentary succession. So also, no uniform standard is adopted or followed across the State by the Revenue Officers under the TR Rules when dealing with the request to transfer registry based on Will.

7. Going by the scheme of the TR Rules, transfer of registry takes place either (i) by voluntary action of the owners, (ii) by decrees of Civil Courts or by Revenue sales and (iii) by succession (Rule 2). Rule 3 d