Kerala High Court: The Bench of Alexander Thomas, J. set aside an order passed by Tahsildar vide which petitioners’ request for transfer of registry and mutation was rejected, holding the same to be ultra vires and illegal.

Petitioners’ herein were the donee of gift deeds executed by their respective mothers – Meenakshi Amma and Narayani Amma. The respondent rejected their request for transfer of registry and mutation in their names on the ground that Narayani Amma and Meenakshi Amma had got right over the subject property on the basis of a registered gift deed executed by their mother. The said deed specifically stipulated that the subject property therein was to be possessed as ancestral property and its rights would devolve only on female descendants. Thus, the Tahsildar opined that transfer of registry sought for by the petitioners could not be done as Meenakshi Amma and Narayani Amma did not have the right to alienate property going by the descriptions and stipulations in gift deed.

The Court opined that Tahsildar had no power whatsoever to decide on the title of the parties concerned. When the concerned Sub-Registrar had duly registered gift deeds in favour of the petitioners under the Registration Act, 1908 then the respondent could not have refused mutation and transfer of registry on basis of his opinion. Determinations of vexed issues of the title are issues falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a civil court.

In view of the above, the petition was allowed directing the respondent to take necessary steps for the transfer of registry and mutation in favour of the petitioners.[Marunnoli Vijayalakshmi v. Tahsildar, Koyilandi Taluk, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 7425, Order dated 13-12-2018]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release


  • Need a hon’ble court debate about the fake mutation (confirmed after the tahasildar report) such as NO village accountant report and revenue inspector report and tahasildar order and mahajar, so the above said fake mutation .. need to have the above said details report of no va,RI, tahasildar report and No title deed, saying report .. should send a proposal to assistant commissioner from the tahasildar as ..the authority to cancel the fake mutation.
    it’s meaning is that the tahasildar need to send a propose to Assistant commissioner court or office to cancel the mutation, But today in kanakapura
    . the tahasildar has kept pending of above said details by not making report proposal to assistant commissioner and saying to go AC court ( to a stranded applicant by a fake documents created at the office) against a fake mutation. so the govt is making two minds about the fake mutation.. that one is no ground reality report quoting to AC proposal and again saying to Go AC court by in completed report of fake family tree. also not endorsing the fake family tree as a fake family tree on the ground of no report of VA,RI,TAHASILDAR REPORT.
    so the govt itself is supporting to fake or forge documents ownership not making it’s report of detailed, so need a guide lines about the accountability of reports making officer, time limit, proposal etc

  • If my brother has given in bank that father has not made any WILL, then in court he has filed for partition of property as perWILL. Wheather case is right or wrong

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.