SIVASANKAR, K. Vs. TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned single Judge dated 13.10.2016 while disposing of W.P.(C) No.9498 of 2016.

(2.) The third respondent, the sister of the appellant, was served with notice of proceedings in this appeal. She has chosen not to appear, as was the case in the writ proceedings. The fourth respondent has appeared through counsel. With their consent, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

(3.) The whole controversy is with regard to application of the appellant for mutation in respect of about 11 acres of land which earlier stood in the name of his mother being Karuthedathu Kainikkara Meenakshi Amma. According to the appellant, during the life time of mother itself, there was a partition amongst the family members. In the partition, the third respondent relinquished her share. The partition deed was registered, i.e., Exhibit P1. This partition deed having been executed, the appellant made an application before the Tahsildar to effect mutation accordingly. The 3rd respondent approached the Tahsildar and sought for setting aside the partition deed. At the first instance, the Tahsildar rejected the objection filed by the third respondent on the ground that it was a registered partition deed and no objection could be heard. The same was confirmed by the Sub Collector, Perintalmanna, as well. After sometime, she again filed an application before the Tahsildar. This time, strangely enough, the Tahsildar entertained her application and sought opinion from a Government Pleader. The Government Pleader opined that as the registered partition deed was being disputed and so long as the dispute is not decided as between the parties, mutation cannot be effected according to the partition deed. This is what brought the appellant to the writ court.