Revenue authorities conduct mutation of property exclusively for fiscal purposes (tax collection) under the Transfer of Registry Rules and cannot adjudicate upon complex questions of title or conduct roving inquiries that fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts.

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 some reasons or another. The defendants filed a written statement resisting the suit and contending that the property covered by the plaintiff’s sale deeds is situated in old Survey No.2651 and the Re-Survey of these properties stated in the title deed is re- Survey No.8 in Block No.78 of Koottickal Village. The plaintiff claims that he got this property from its prior owners Thomas George, Joseph Francis and Joseph Alphonsa. It is further contended that as per the title deeds of the plaintiff this property forms part of the property as per Patta No.17923/77 and 17936/77 of the Land Tribunal, Kottayam. The properties covered by these pattas are comprised in Old Survey Nos.2651 and as per the Re-survey records the property having an extent of 06.25.60 hectors in Re-Survey No.8 in Block No.78 belongs to Ashly Estate Limited, and they are paying tax in respect of Thandapper Account No.3 of Koottickal Village. As per the Basic Tax Register of the above properties, the old Survey numbers are 2641, 2642, 2643 and 2644. Though the Survey Superintendent of Kanjirappally has passed orders in favour of the plaintiff for transferring the properties in the name of the plaintiff as per order in S.A.Nos.12/02, 13/02 and 14/02, an enquiry is pending in respect of the proceedings of the Survey Superintendent and that apart the office of the S.B.C.I.D., Kottayam has called for a report of these properties from the Village Office and that the plaintiff’s application cannot be considered at this stage. On behalf of the plaintiff Exts.A1 to A12 documents were marked and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of defendants Exts.B1 to B6 were marked and DW1 was examined. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

“1. Is there any valid ground on the defendant’s side in refusing the transfer of registry in respect of the plaint schedule properties in the name of the plaintiff?

2. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a mandatory injunction as prayed for?

3. Relief and cost?”

On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the trial court decreed the suit directing the defendants to transfer the Revenue Registry of the plaint schedule properties in the name of the plaintiff and to accept the tax. Aggrieved the defendants preferred A.S.No.85 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Pala. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the findings rendered by the trial court cannot be sustained and accordingly interfered with the findings rendered by the trial court and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and hence, the present appeal.

3. On 30.09.2015 the appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal, which read as under:

“(1) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in