J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that he is the owner in possession of the property involved in this case and seeking a direction to the respondents to effect transfer of Registry of the same in his name, de hors an order of revenue recovery attachment on it.

2. Sri.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that even if there is an order of attachment on the property, there is no legal inhibition in the transfer of Registry of the same in his client's name and that this has been settled by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judments.

3. As an alternative submission, Sri.Sunil Kumar submitted that, against the Revenue Recovery attachment, his client has already moved a statutory appeal in terms of the liberty granted to him by this Court through Ext.P8 judgment and that hearing of the same has been completed and final orders are awaited. He, therefore, prayed that his client may be given some time to produce the documents as mentioned in Ext.P12 communication, so that she can then convince the Special Tahsildar about the tenability of his client's case.

4. Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned Senior Government Pleader, in response, submitted that the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar, has been incapacitated from effecting transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner on account of the admitted pendency of the revenue recovery attachment over the property. She submitted that, however, with respect to the request of the petitioner for further time to produce the documents as mentioned in Ext.P12, she will not stand in the way of this Court passing appropriate orders. 5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is without doubt that petitioner has approached this Court with two prayers: namely, that she be given some more time to produce the documents mentioned in Ext.P12 and that the 2nd respondent be directed to effect transfer of Registry in her name de hors the revenue recovery attachment on the property.

6. As far as the 1st prayer of the petitioner for time to produce the documents in Ext.P12 is concerned, I deem it appropriate to grant her four months, since it is not opposed by the learned Senior Government Pleader; while, as regards the other prayer for transfer of Registry of the property de hors the order of attachment is concerned, I leave it to the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar to consider the same, after hearing the petitioner, particularly taking into account her contention that even if such an attachment is in effect, the transfer of Registry is not inhibited, since same runs with the property. The petitioner can move the 2nd respondent for this purpose within a period of one week and the said Authority will take a decision thereon within a period of two weeks thereafter Needless to say, if the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar accedes to the request of the petitioner for transfer of Registry of the property de hors the order of attachment, then, until it is vacated in terms of law, same will continue to have effect on the property and the petitioner will be obligated to abide by the same in future.

This writ petition is thus ordered.