The court found an error in not applying Rule 27 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, affecting the title dispute resolution process.

O R D E R

The writ petitioner seeks to review the judgment of this court dated

6/9/2021 in W.P.(C) No.3061/2021.

2. The essential facts, as disclosed from the writ petition are that, the writ petitioner and the first and the second respondents are the children born to the third respondent in her matrimonial relationship with one Rajappan. Rajappan owned an item of property. After his death, the property devolved on the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 in equal shares. According to the petitioner, while they were in joint possession of the property, dispute regarding title arose and hence he filed O.S.No.484/2020 before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha, seeking injunction. First respondent resisted the suit relying on a Will stated to have been executed by Rajappan and registered as document No. 82/2019/III of Mararikulam SRO, in favour of the first respondent. By virtue of the above Will, the first respondent claimed absolute title over the property. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed O.S.No.504/2020 of Munisiff Court, Alappuzha for setting aside the Will and for partition of the property. The suit is pending. Apprehending that, in the meanwhile, the first respondent may try to change the Registry claiming right on the basis of the Will, the petitioner issued notice to the Tahsildar requiring him not to effect mutation of the property, in favour of the first respondent. Apprehending that not withstanding the above and the pendency of O.S.No. 504/2020, the Tahsildar may effect mutation, the writ petition was filed. The relief sought in the writ petition was to direct the 4^th respondent not to effect mutation of the property pending the suit.

3. The first respondent appeared and contested the proceedings, claiming that he had absolute right over the property, that the change of Registry was for fiscal purposes only and that the disputes relating to title are to be adjudicated by the court of Law. It was contended that the officers maintaining the revenue records are not expected to go into disputed contentious issue. It was further contended that their obligation was to effect mutation or change of registry on the basis of the registered documents made available to them.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the writ petition was heard and by judgment dated 6/9/2021, the writ petition was dismissed. Essentially, this court held that if an application is filed before the Tahsildar, the settled legal proposition as disclosed from the various decisions cited at Bar, indicated that the Tahsildar has to take an independent decision after giving a reasonable opportunity to persons affected thereby. It was also held that he cannot go into the contentious dispute of title, which was absolutely within the domain of the civil court. It was held by this Court that pending the proceedings, he cannot refuse to effect mutation of the property on the mere ground that dispute was pending before the court.

5. Contending that this court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record and that the judgment was not legally sustainable, the writ petitioner has filed this review petition. The contesting respondent has filed objection and both sides were heard.

6. Essentially, the contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner was confined to Rule 27 of the Transfer of Registry Rules 1967. Rule 27 provides that, in the case of transfer of title by succession, all cases of change of registry shall be disposed of in accordance with Rule 27. It was held that when a claim by succession of heir ship was sought, and when succession was not disputed, the Tahsildar may direct the transfer of registry either at once or after due enquiry. If the succession was disputed, the Tahsildar should hold a summary enquiry as to who has the right to s