JUDGMENT

WP(C) No.3884/2024 Petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P4 sale deed. One Antony executed Ext.P1 will bequeathing his property in favour of his son, One A.K. Vincent with a rider that two items of property would be succeeded by the son only after the lifetime of M.Kanakamma, wife of the executant. On the death of the said Antony, the right over the property reserved over the lifetime of M.Kanakamma was settled by her in favour of her son, A.K. Vincent by Ext.P2 document. Out of the property covered by Ext.P1 will, 3.6 cents of property was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P4 sale deed executed by A.K.Vincent and M.Kanakamma and the said M.Kanakamma joined in the execution of Ext.P4 for the reason that she was enjoying a life interest over a building in the property. After Ext.P4 sale deed was registered, the petitioner submitted application before the 2nd respondent for affecting mutation. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P6 communication sought clarification from the 1st respondent expressing a doubt regarding the validity of the sale in favour of the petitioner by Ext.P4 in view of the condition in Ext.P1 that A.K.Vincent, beneficiary of the Will would succeed to the corpus of the Will only after the lifetime of M.Kanakamma. Petitioner contend that for the purpose of effecting mutation in terms of Transfer of Registry Rules an enquiry into the title of the applicant’s vendor is uncalled for.

WP(C) No.3892/2024

2. The facts of the case are exactly similar to the facts in the WPC No.3884 of 2024 except that the petitioner herein purchased 1.25 Ares as per Ext.P4 sale deed.

3. Ext.P4 sale deed in both these writ petitions was duly registered by the registering authority. The doubt was raised by the 2nd respondent when an application was submitted for mutation of the property. Though M.Kanakamma had a life interest in the property covered by Ext.P1, she had executed Ext.P2 document whereby settling her rights over the property reserved over her lifetime, but with a condition that she will be entitled to reside in the building in Schedule No. 1 but it is to be noted that Ext.P4 was executed both by A.K.Vincent and M.Kanakamma specifically for the reason that she was enjoying life interest over a building in the property. It is only after being satisfied with these aspects that Ext.P4 deed was registered by the registering authority. The question is whether respondents 1 and 2 have the power to examine the issue regarding title when a property is sought to be mutated based on a registered sale deed. This Court in Vijayalakshmi v. Tahsildar, 2019 (2) KLT 373 has held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as follows:

“15. This Court is constrained to enter into discussion on the abovesaid issues only because the 1st respondent has cited those aspects as the main ground of rejection in the impugned Ext.P-15 order. Therefore, the said observations and findings made by this Court on those issues are only made from the limited perspective to decide on the matters relating to grant of Transfer of Registry and mutation.

16. As already noted hereinabove, the 1st respondent Tahsildar as the authority concerned with grant of mutation and Transfer of Registry, has no power to examine such vexed issues of title and therefore he has unnecessarily strayed himself into areas which are totally irrelevant and not germane for the purpose of the enquiry for exercising the powers conferred on him. It has been held by this Court in a catena of decisions as in Sainudheen v. State of Kerala (2013 (1) KHC 437, para 13) that the Tahsildar, as the mutation granting authority, cannot decide on the validity of the documents, and the title of the previous owner and that Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules has made the said position abundantly clear. Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules mandates that “the summary, enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes, and