JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the 4th respondent whereby the request made by the petitioners for mutation has been declined taking a stand that there is a suit pending as OS No.114/2023 before the Munsiff's Court, Peermedu.

2. Petitioners obtained 12.80 Ares of property situated in old Survey No.654/354/3 of Vagamon Village in Peermedu Taluk as per Ext.P1 sale deed No.1437/2023 of Peermedu SRO. As per Ext.P1 an extent of 6.73 Ares scheduled as item No.1 in Ext.P1 belongs to the 1st petitioner and an extent of 6.07 ares scheduled as item No.2 in Ext.P1 belongs to the 2nd petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the 5th respondent herein, ie., the vendor of Ext.P1 property, was the owner in occupation of a total extent of 31.54 Ares of property on the basis of partition deed No.2402/2022 of Peermedu SRO and it is from this 31.54 Ares that he sold 12.80 Ares of properties to the petitioners. The 5th respondent has been paying land tax also in respect of the said 31.54 Ares of properties under Thandaper No.11702, as is evident from Ext.P2 tax receipt. After purchasing the property from the 5th respondent the petitioners submitted an application before the 4th respondent for mutation of the respective properties in their names, which has not been acted upon. As per Ext.P3 there is a suit pending as OS No.114/2023 before the Munsiff's Court, Peermedu filed by the additional 6th respondent. Though notice was issued to the additional 6th respondent, there is no appearance on his behalf. Petitioners submit that the issue is covered by a catena of judgments of this Court including the judgment in Sivasankaran K. V. Tahsildar, Manjeri and Others 2017 (3) KHC 855) wherein paragraphs 7 and 8 which held as follows:

“7. Now, coming to the objection of the third respondent, the sister of the appellant. The third respondent has not denied execution of the partition deed. All she says was that she was misled into signing the same. She has now filed a suit for getting over Exhibit P1. The suit is pending. But as of now the position is that there is a registered partition deed. Execution whereof is not denied, registration whereof is not denied. That being the position, in our view, the Tahsildar was correct when he first ordered that he would not take cognizance of the objection of the third respondent. We thus, find that the impugned order of the Tahsildar in the writ petition and the direction of the learned single Judge authorising the Tahsildar to hear and decide the dispute cannot be held to be correct. If there is serious bona fide disputes raised with regard to right, title and interest in the property then obviously, Tahsildar is not the authority to decide the same. It is a civil court of competent jurisdiction alone which can decide the matter.

8. As noted above, the dispute raised by the third respondent, the sister, is yet to be considered by the civil court where the suit is pending. She did not deny execution of the partition deed. Therefore, so far as the mutation authorities are concerned, the Tahsildar ought to have proceeded on the basis of the application filed by the appellant leaving the sister to move civil court. We may notice that it is now well settled that mutation entries in revenue records by itself does not create any right, title or interest in the property. It is a record only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. (See Balwant Singh and Another v. Daulat Singh (Dead) by Lr.s ad Others [(1997) 7 SCC 137]). Right, title or interest is to be decided, in case of any dispute, only by civil court of competent jurisdiction.”

This Court in the said judgment has held that so far as authorities are concerned they have proceed on the basis of the application filed by the parties as mutation entries in the revenue records by itself does not create any right, title and possession over the property and the record is only for the purpose of collection of land rev