JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner of 2.10 ares of land as per Ext.P1 document, sought for transfer of registry in his name. The same is denied by the 2^nd respondent Tahasildar for the reason that an attachment is pending in respect of that property.

2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court notice that the pendency of an attachment, by itself, is no ground to refuse the mutation. The issue is covered by judgment of this Court in Vijayarajan M.D. v. Tahasildar and others reported in 2013 KHC 2764 .

3. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent Tahasildar to effect mutation in the name of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 document in respect of the subject property, if his application for mutation is otherwise in order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of, as above.