The legitimacy of a property title cannot be denied solely due to ongoing litigation regarding prior transactions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims title to 4.5 Ares of land in Re- survey No.499/9 of Airapuram village. The petitioner purchased the said property from one Jaya Sajeev, who got the property under sale deed No.427/2022. The property was mutated in her name under Thandapper No.9638. After purchasing the property in the year 2025, the petitioner applied for transfer of registry, which, however, was rejected by the 2^nd respondent/Tahsildar vide Ext.P7 order, citing the pendency of a suit filed by the 4^th respondent, who is the husband of the above said Jaya Sajeev.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

3. Learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that the property originally belonged to the 4^th respondent/Sajeevan, who executed a power of attorney in favour of his wife, Jaya Sajeev. Acting upon the same, she sold the property to her sister Ambika, which was later reconveyed to the said Jaya Sajeev, as per Ext.P3 document. It is thereafter that Jaya Sajeev sold the property to the petitioner. Learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that, a suit has been filed by the 4^th respondent/Sajeevan against Jaya Sajeev and her sister Ambika, wherein, Ext.P8 interim injunction Order has been passed, restraining alienation, as also, from committing waste etc., It is in these circumstances, that the transfer of Registry sought for by the petitioner was refused, vide Ext.P7. 4. Having heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court notice that, the purchase in favour of the petitioner was on 06.03.2025, which was prior to the date of Ext.P8 order, i.e., 14.03.2025. At any rate, no orders have been passed cancelling the title deed of the petitioner. For the mere reason that, there is a challenge posed in respect of the transactions made by Jaya Sajeev, the legitimate due in favour of the petitioner cannot be deprived. All what the petitioner seeks is the transfer of Registry based on Ext.P1 sale deed. Needless to say that the transfer, even if allowed, will be subject to the validity of Ext.P1, if at all the same is under challenge before any Court of law.

5. In such circumstances, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to effect transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property, which however, will be subject to the result of O.P.No.202 of 2025 of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. Let the above exercise be done within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the 2^nd respondent, for compliance.

The writ petition will stand disposed of, as above.

Sd/-