Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
VAHAB M.M – Appellant
Versus
THE TAHSILDAR- LAND RECORDS – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28418 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: RAJ CAROLIN V.
For the Respondents: AJITH VISWANATHAN
Petitioners entitled to registry transfer based on settlement deed despite prior transfer based on possession.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged the inaction regarding the transfer of registry pursuant to a settlement deed under Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The Court found that transfer of registry had been executed to a third party based on possession and determined that there was no legal obstacle for the petitioners to obtain transfer rights over the property. The Court issued directions to the relevant authority to process the petitioners' application promptly within six weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of inaction in property registry transfer. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. determination of entitlement to transfer based on settlement. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's directive for registry compliance. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction in effecting transfer of registry in their name pursuant to Ext.P3 settlement deed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the records.
3. It is noticed that transfer of registry has already been effected in the name of one Sinumon based on possession only, in terms of Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 . As a matter of fact, the same was done pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.37954/2023. Now, the petitioners' claim that the said Sinumon settled his two - third right over the property in favour of the petitioners. Needless to say that whatever possessory rights Sinumon had, alone will stand settled on the petitioners. On the strength of Ext.P3 settlement deed, petitioners sought for transfer of registry, which is not being acted upon by the respondents, is the grievance.
4. This Court notice that transfer of registry has already been effected in the name of Sinumon, pursuant to the directions of this Court in the Writ Petition afore referred. If that be so, there cannot be any impediment in effecting transfer of registry in the name of the petitioners, who are assignees under the said Sinumon. Rule 28 speaks of mutation based on possession and that the same is allowed in the case of Sinumon. Therefore, there cannot be any legal obstacle in effecting the same in name of the petitioners, as well. Of course, the transfer of registry can be only to the extent of the two-third right, which have been settled on the petitioners.
5. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent/Tahsildar (L.R) to take necessary action as per law in the light of the above discussion in the petitioners' application for transfer of registry in respect of the subject property. Let a call in this regard be taken, in accordance with law, at the earliest, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, for compliance.
This Writ Petition will stand disposed of, as above.
