JUDGMENT

The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent to proceed with the application for mutation and to effect mutation of properties purchased by the petitioner treating Ext.P4 decree as a decree in lieu of a decree declaring the civil death of Mr. K.G Thomas.

2. The properties originally belonged to Sri.K.T George and Aleyamma George who died intestate on 09.07.2011 and 23.06.2010 respectively. On the death of the above said persons the property is devolved on their sons K.G.Thomas and Anil.K.George Koshy as legal heirs. Sri.K.G.Thomas married Elizabeth Samuel on 24.10.1988 and from 29.10.1988 Sri.K.G.Thomas had left and has not been known of for all these years by any person, who is related to him. No children were born in the wedlock and the marriage was dissolved on 12.07.2001 by decree in OP(D) 61/1999 of the District Court, Pathanamthitta. Elizabeth Samuel remarried one K.M.Chacko. Anil. K. Goerge Koshy, the brother of Sri.K.G Thomas married Juby Koshy and two male children were born in the wedlock. Sri.Anil.K. George Koshy expired on 23.04.2008 leaving behind his wife and two children. The petitioner and his wife had purchased properties from Mrs.Juby Koshy, Mr. Libin Koshy and Mr.Livin Koshy. Ext.P1 is the sale deed. Ext.P2 is a public notice which has been issued by the petitioner regarding any claim or dispute regarding the property prior to the registration of the sale deed. The vendors of the property had instituted O.S.No.238/2014 before the Munsiff Court, Adoor for declaration of the title over the property in question and for declaring that Sri.K.G.Thomas is not known of for the past 34 years has to be presumed to be dead. As per the decree in O.S.No.238/2014 produced as Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 delivery receipt dated 07.07.2021, the property devolved on vendors of the petitioner.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though application was submitted on 04.12.2021 for effecting mutation of the property in the name of the petitioner by incorporating the details in the revenue records, the same was not done. It would appear that legal advice was sought for and as per the legal advice since the civil death of Sri.K.G Thomas has not been declared and even though his brother Mr.Anil K George Koshy and his wife had entered into a settlement, the same cannot be held to be binding on Sri.K.G Thomas who was not a party to the compromise decree.

4. By Ext.P8 communication the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that, the document has been executed only by the legal representatives of Anil.K. George Koshy and Sri.K.G Thomas is not seen to have participated in the same. It is further stated that as long as a civil death decree is not produced it cannot be presumed that Sri.K.G Thomas is no more.

5. It is trite law that effecting mutation does not amount to declaration of title of the person in whose favour the mutation is effected. So also payment of basic tax will not amount to a declaration of such title. The above said documents are relevant only for fiscal purposes and as far as a title to a property is concerned, the last word can only be that of a civil court.

In such circumstances, there is no reason why the 1st respondent should deny mutation on the basis of a registered document which has been executed between the parties. It is trite law that, if Sri.K.G.Thomas is still alive he will not be bound either by the decree in O.S.No.238/2014 or by the mutation that would be effected by the 1st respondent based on Ext.P1 sale deed. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to effect mutation of the properties in the name of the petitioner and collect basic tax on the basis of Ext.P1 document and Ext.P4 decree. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion regarding the title of the petitioner over the property and none of the rights of Sri.K.G. Thomas is affected in any manner by the directions issued by this Court in this wr