The order of the Family Court did not prevent revenue authorities from effectuating mutation or accepting land tax in light of valid sale deeds executed before the injunction.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of April 2021 The 7th respondent Smt.Umma Saluma alias Saleema, who was formerly married to Sri. Noohukhan, the 6th respondent, executed Ext.P1 sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner Sri. Salim, who is her brother and Ext.P2 sale deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner Smt. Sunitha Salim, the wife of the 1st petitioner. Exts. P1 and P2 sale deeds were executed on 14.09.2015. After the execution of the sale deeds, the petitioners applied for transfer of registry of the properties in the revenue records. The applications were registered by the Village Officer as P.V. No.747/15 and P.V. No.748/15. The application, P.V. No.747/2015 in respect of Ext. P1 sale deed was allowed and mutation was effected and separate thandaper was registered in favour of 1st petitioner. While the application for mutation, P.V. No.748/2015 in respect of Ext. P2 sale deed was under process, Sri. Noohukhan, the former husband of Smt.Umma Saluma filed objection before the Village Officer and the Tahsildar claiming right over the properties covered by Exts. P1 and P2 sale deeds.

2. In the meantime, Sri. Noohukhan approached the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram by filing an original petition for settlement of the matrimonial dispute between him and Smt.Umma Saluma. Apart from Smt.Umma Saluma, the writ petitioners are respondents 2 and 3 respectively in the said original petition. The Family Court by order dated 26.11.2015 passed an interim order of injunction, restraining Smt.Umma Saluma and the writ petitioners from creating and registering documents or from creating encumbrance with respect to the petition schedule properties, which also include the properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2 title deeds. The order of the Family Court is extracted herein below:-

“Upon motion made into this Court by petitioner and upon reading the petition of the said petitioner in this matter filed on 25.11.2015 and upon hearing the evidence of the petitioner this court doth order that an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from creating and registering documents or from creating encumbrance with respect to the petition schedule properties till 23.12.2015.

The said order of injunction passed by the Family Court on 26.11.2015 was later extended until further orders on 23.12.2015 and is still in force.

3. Since the Tahsildar did not take any action on the application filed by the petitioners for mutation, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)

No.29325/2016 seeking direction to the Tahsildar to take decision on the application for transfer of registry expeditiously. By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with direction to the Additional Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara to take a decision on the application for Transfer of Registry within two months after hearing the writ petitioners, Sri. Noohukhan and Smt.Umma Saluma. Pursuant thereto, the Additional Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara, passed Ext.P6 order dated 30.01.2017, allowing P.V. No.748/2015 and directing the village officer to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P2 sale deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner. On transfer of registry, the petitioners also paid land tax for the said properties for the period

2017-18.

4. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order of the Additional Tahsildar effecting mutation, Sri. Noohukhan filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Rule 18(i) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram by Ext.P10 order dated 06.06.2017, allowed the said appeal and directed cancellation of mutation effected in respect of properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds. The appeal was allowed taking into account the pendency of civil dispute over the properties and the interim order of injunction of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. No. 1935/2015.

5. Aggrieved by Ext.P10 order of the Sub Collector, the petitioners preferred revision before the Dis