Court affirmed that possession under a family arrangement may supersede documented title when seeking registry transfer.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order, which warranted the petitioner to produce title documents for effecting transfer of registry. 2. The brief facts are as follows:-

The 1stpetitioner, one Shaji Kuriakose is the son of Kuriakose, who got 1.3480 hectares of land as per a partition deed. Kuriakose, got title to 95.16 ares of land as per a sale deed. Pursuant to the death of one David, the brother of Kuriakose, he got title to another extent of 39.64 ares. Since David died intestate and issueless, the partition was effected in the family, as per which, the 1stpetitioner, Shaji Kuriakose got title to 134.80 ares. Pursuant to the partition deed, the entire 134.80 ares have been mutated in favour of the 1stpetitioner. Thereafter, the 1stpetitioner effected the sale of certain extent of land and the remaining extent is 38.06 ares. Out of the said 38.06 ares, the 1stpetitioner sold the properties having various extent to petitioners 2 to 5. When the said petitioners sought for transfer of registry, the same was refused vide Ext.P9.

3. The essential reason stated for refusing transfer of Registry sought for is the absence of title of Kuriakose over 134.80 ares of land. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that, he had title only to 95.16 ares. Therefore, in the absence of title deeds providing for 38.06 ares, mutation cannot be effected, is the stand taken.

4. In acceptance of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the extent over and in addition to 95.16 ares was obtained by the 1^st petitioner’s father, Kuriakose under a family arrangement, which requires no title. Thereafter, the said Kuriakose and the petitioner were in continuous and uninterrupted possession over the property. Therefore, at any rate, the petitioners are entitled to get the transfer of Registry effected in terms of Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules , 1996.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court finds that the petitioners’ claim based on Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules merits consideration by the 3^rd respondent/Tahsildar. The application for transfer of registry has to be considered in terms of the procedure contemplated in Rule 28 , specifically to conduct a summary enquiry to find out the parameters culled out in Rule 28 .

6. In such circumstances, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent/Tahsildar to proceed with the petitioners’ application under Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules . Needless to say that an opportunity of being heard, in terms of law, to the petitioners, as also any other affected party, has to be afforded. Let a call in this regard be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3^rd respondent, for compliance.

The Writ Petition will stand disposed of, as above.

Sd/-