JUDGMENT

The petitioner purchased the subject property having an extent of 10 cents on 15.09.2025 as per Ext.P1 sale deed of the year 2025. However, mutation in respect of the said property in favour of the petitioner is refused, on the premise that there is an attachment over the property at the instance of the wife of the vendor, between whom a matrimonial dispute is pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court notice that the legal position in this regard has already been settled in favour of the petitioner. Mere pendency of an attachment cannot stand in the way of effecting mutation. Needless to say that the mutation, as also, the title of the petitioner will be subject to the attachment, if the attachment is effected prior to the effectuation of the sale. Clarifying the legal position as above, there will be a direction to the

2^nd respondent/Tahsildar to effect mutation in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of