J U D G M E N T

The petitioner says that he and his family have been in ownership and possession of the property involved in this case for the last several decades and that this is evident from Exts.P1 and P2 decrees of a competent Civil Court, which was obtained by his father late Sri.Kunjappan.

2. The petitioner says that his father had informed him that his predecessors were in occupation of this property for more than hundred years and that this has been recognized in the aforementioned judgments and decrees. He asserts that the property is well defined, which is limpid from Ext.P4 report of the Commissioner deputed by the Civil Court; and that he has constructed a new residential house there, after demolishing the old one. He then explained that the property was given to him in possession by a Court Amin, which is manifest from Ext.P5 and therefore, that, going by Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules , since he has been in continuous possession over the property for more than twelve years, he is entitled to remit land tax on it and to enjoy its possession without any impediment.

3. The petitioner, however, alleges that when he made Ext.P6 application to remit the land tax,