Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
Jubin – Appellant
Versus
Village Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the mutation suit and the procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of contentions regarding the scope of mutation and revenue inquiry. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. procedural directions of this court regarding departmental surveys and status reports. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. mutation is for fiscal purposes only and does not determine title. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
EASWARAN S., J.
1. Plaintiff in a suit for mandatory injunction directing the revenue authorities to effect mutation in respect of the plaint schedule property has come up in the appeal aggrieved by the reversal of the decree granted in his favour.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:
Plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule properties as per Sale Deed Nos.536/05 and 2100/06 registered with Poonjar Sub Registrar Office. After purchasing the properties he applied for transferring the revenue registry in June, 2007. Since the revenue authorities did not take any steps to mutate the properties in the name of the plaintiff, he approached several authorities including Lok Adalath. The plaintiff’s request was denied by the defendants on the pretext of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
