JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that the property involved in this case was owned by her husband late R.Krishnan and that he had bequeathed the same in her favour through Ext.P3 Will.

2. The petitioner says that her husband, R.Krishnan died on 05.03.2018 - as is evident from Ext.P2 Death Certificate; and that the property in question has remained in her exclusive ownership and possession thereafter. She says that, however, when she applied for transfer of Registry of the property in her favour on the strength of the said Will, the respondents have refused to do so merely saying that there is an attachment over it at the instance of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam, in O.A.No.66 of 2021.

3. The petitioner submits that she was aware of the afore attachment only when she obtained Ext.P4 Encumbrance Certificate and argues that even if there is any such attachment, the transfer of Registry of the property cannot be refused for that reason and she relies on the judgments of this Court in Joykutty Thomas v. Village Officer, Pattuzhi South and Others [2009 (3) KLT 914] and Rimmy v.State of Kerala & Others [2012 KHC 2981]

in substantiation.

4. The petitioner, therefore, prays that respondents be directed to accede to her request and effect transfer of Registry of the property in her favour, leading to payment of land tax on it, on the strength of Ext.P3 Will.

5. The afore submissions of Sri.G.Hariharan –

learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned Government Pleader – Smt.M.Anima, saying that respondents are incapacitated from acceding to the request of the petitioner only because there is an order of attachment over the property at the instance of the DRT. She submitted that, however, if this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to effect transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that there is an attachment over the property in question, necessary action thereon can be taken without any avoidable delay.

6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is without doubt that law is now well settled – without requirement of reinstatement – that merely because there is an attachment over the property, its transfer of Registry cannot be stopped, especially when there is no real transfer of ownership, and the petitioner is only seeking the benefits of the bequest made by her husband through Ext.P3 Will.

7. This is more so because, even if the transfer of Registry of the property is effected in favour of the petitioner, the attachment over it will continue to be in effect and the persons/entity, who has obtained the same, will have full recourse against it as per law.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for transfer of Registry of the property and for remittance of land tax thereon on the strength of Ext.P3 Will, after affording her an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, the transfer of Registry or permission to remit land tax on the property shall not be denied to the petitioner solely because there is an attachment over it, because as I have already said above, same will run on the property, notwithstanding such transfer, until it is vacated or modified as per due process in law.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

akv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 665/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.

706/72 OF SRO NEMMARA EXECUTED ON 26-

07-1972 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 05-03-2018 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR AND HEAD CLERK OF THE BIRTH AND DEATH REGISTRATION WING OF THE MELARCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 23-03-2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL AS WILL NO. 9/III/2009 OF SRO, NEMMARA ON

19-01-2009 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO. 5030/2021 DATED