T.R.RAVI,J. - (1.)Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
(2.)The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm and petitioners 2 and 3 are two of its partners. The prayers in the writ petition are to quash Ext.P8 order and for a direction to the respondents to carry out mutation of the properties of the 1st petitioner firm to the extent of 1.80 Ares in Resurvey No.399/62, 12.62 Ares in Resurvey No.399/2-2 and 1.29 Ares in Resurvey No.399/63/2 in Block No.26 of Kalady Village, Aluva Taluk, in the name of the petitioner firm. The case of the petitioners is that as per Ext.P1 partnership deed, the petitioner firm was constituted by its partners. As capital contribution of the petitioners 2 and 3 they had brought in the properties shown in Schedules A, B and C of the partnership deed and the right to access to the above through properties shown in D and E schedules. It is submitted that the above properties have thus become the partnership properties. Petitioners had applied for mutation of the properties in the name of the firm as per Ext.P4 application. The Village Officer referred the application to the Tahsildar by letter dtd. 25/2/2022 produced as Ext.P5. The Tahsildar returned the file to the Village Officer directing the Village Officer to act after getting legal opinion. The Village Officer sought legal opinion from the Government Pleader regarding mutation of the properties. It appears that in Ext.P7 opinion, the advice received by the Village Officer was that the mutation can be done only as per the order of the Court. In the above circumstances, the Village Officer returned the application submitted by the petitioners stating that a Court order should be procured for carrying out mutation. Ext.P8 is the order by which the applications were returned. The petitioners have challenged Ext.P8. It is contended that once the properties have been brought in as capital of the firm, which is an action permitted under Sec. 14 of the Partnership Act, it is a transfer from a partner to the partnership firm by operation of law. It is hence submitted that since the firm is the owner of the property for all purposes, mutation cannot be denied in the name of the firm. Reliance is placed on the judgment in George V.J. and Ors. v. V.V.George and Ors. [2010 (2) KHC 674] and Park Residency (M/s.) v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KHC 767]. The petitioners submit that the denial of mutation is affecting the right of the 1st petitioner firm to put to use the property of the firm for the purposes of its business and earn income.
(3.)Heard Sri.P.Thomas Geeverghese on behalf of the petitioners and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, Sr. Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.