IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14799 of 2009(T)
1. GEORGE FRANCIS @ FRANCIS NIGIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. P.J.GLADWIN, S/O. P.T.JOSEPH,
3. V.F.GEORGE, S/O. FRANCIS,
For Petitioner :SRI.VISHNU SOMAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :26/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 14799 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 26th June,2009
J U D G M E N T
Third respondent is the father of the petitioner. A
suit was instituted against the 3rd respondent for
recovery of damages and property belonging to the 3rd
respondent was brought to sale. Second respondent
purchased the same in court auction. But later the parties
entered into a compromise and it was agreed that the
property shall be assigned in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, Exhibit-P1 sale deed was executed.
Petitioner purchased the property from the 2nd
respondent. Third respondent also joined in the
execution of the sale deed. He has now sought for
mutation of the property as evidenced by Exhibit- P4
application. This writ petition has been filed alleging
delay in effecting mutation citing pendency of the suit
which was originally decreed against the 2nd respondent.
W.P ( C) No. 14799 of 2009
2
Notice has been issued to respondents 2 and 3. But
there is no appearance. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, there is no reason why the mutation shall not be
effected in relation to the property covered by Exhibit-P1.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st
respondent to proceed to effect mutation of the property
covered by Exhibit-P1 within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 14799 of 2009
3
W.P ( C) No. 14799 of 2009
4