Authorities Bound To Effect Transfer Of Registry, Change 'Patta' Based On Decree Of Competent Civil Courts: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the authorities are bound to effect transfer of registry based on the decrees of competent courts and that title deeds can be revised from time to time based on judicial decisions.
Justice Viju Abraham was considering a plea filed seeking a direction to the District Collector to issue the title deed of 'pokkuvaravu patta' in the name of the petitioner and to allow him to pay land tax for a property.
According to the petitioner, he got the property by a will from his father and he is the absolute owner of the same. The petitioner's father, who was conducting a timber depot in the property originally owned by the ancestors of respondents 4 and 5, got adverse possession of the same.
The petitioner's father and the ancestors of the party respondents initiated litigation against each other over the ownership of the property. In appeal, the appellate court found that the petitioner's father, by adverse possession, became the absolute owner of the property. The appellate court's decision was upheld when challenged before the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, the petitioner's father transferred the property to the petitioner by way of a Will. The petitioner then proceeded to apply for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the property but the same was dismissed.
He approached the High Court, which set aside the dismissal and remitted the matter for reconsideration. This time, an order was issued in favour of the petitioner. This was challenged by respondents 4 and 5 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who allowed the appeal finding that since there is title dispute, further decision can be taken by a competent civil court alone.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the District Collector in revision but the same was dismissed. With no other remedy available, he approached the High Court.
The respondents came before the Court and submitted that the Will that purportedly transferred the property into the petitioner's name was under challenge before the civil court in two separate proceedings. They claimed that only upon finalizing the proceedings and the veracity of the Will is decided can the mutation be effected.
After hearing the parties, the Court proceeded to look into the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. It found that as per Rule 2, the transfer of registry occurs only in four scenarios: by voluntary action of the owners, by virtue of decrees of Civil Courts, by Revenue sales, or by succession.
Examining Rules 2 and 16, the Court opined:
“So, going by the mandates of Rule 2, the authorities are bound to effect transfer of registry based on the decrees passed by the competent Civil Courts… there is a mechanism as provided under Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, to make necessary changes in the patta based on the declaration by the competent Civil Court.”
The Court came to the conclusion that as per the present judicial decision in force, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and tax has to be accepted from him. However, the Court also made it clear that if a competent court renders a finding in favour of the respondents, they can approach the authorities under the Rules for revising the Registry in their names.
The plea was thus disposed of.
Case No: WP(C) No. 11930 of 2022
Case Title: B.K.N. Pillai @ B.K. Narayana Pillai v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 824
Counsel for the petitioner: M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Chethan Krishna R.
Counsel for the respondents: S. Nikhil Sankar