IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10840 of 2007(M)
1. SHANAVAS, S/O A.HABEEBULLA, T.C.31/1885,
... Petitioner
2. RASHIDBIN HAKIM, S/O M.K.ABDUL HAKKIM,
3. ABDUL LATHIFF, S/O SHAMSUDEEN,
4. NASURUDDIN MUSLIAR M.K., S/O K.M.K.
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM.
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. MOHAMMED FATHIMA, D/O ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU
5. SALMA BEEVI, D/O ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU,
6. MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN
7. SAINABA BEEVI, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU,
8. SUHARA BEEVI, D/O ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU,
9. A.MOHAMMED KASSIM, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN
10. A.RUKIYA BEEVI, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU,
11. NISSAR AHAMMED, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU,
12. SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O PONNAN,
13. V.DEEPA, SAUPARNIKA, THEKKEMOODU,
14. PAULOSE, JANCY BHAVAN, CHETTIKUNNU,
15. JANET, JANCY BHAVAN, CHETTIKUNNU,
16. RUDRANI AMMA, KESAVA VILASAM,
17. BHAGEERATHI AMMA, KESAVA VILASAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.10840 of 2007
==================
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners seek the following relief in this writ petition:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction of the nature of mandamus staying all further
proceedings in pursuance of Exts.P8 and P9 complaints pending
before the 3rd respondent till the final disposal of
O.S.No.609/2005, OS No.421/2006 and OS No.651/2005
pending before the Civil Court.”
2. Exts.P8 and P9 referred to in the relief are complaints
filed by respondents 4 to 17 in respect of mutation of properties
in the name of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, these
complaints cannot be proceeded with, in view of the pendency of
OS Nos.609/2005, 421/2006 and 651/2005 pending before the
Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, between the same parties. The
petitioners would also contend that as per clause 16 of the
Transfer of Registry Rules, the authorities under the Transfer of
Registry Rules are bound to obey the civil court decrees in the
matter of effecting mutation. I am of opinion that the petitioners
can raise all these contentions while Exts.P8 and P9 are being
disposed of. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ
2
petition at this stage. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of
the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the authority
with whom Exts.P8 and P9 complaints are pending, who shall
hear the petitioners also while disposing of the same, this writ
petition is closed. However, I hasten to add that I have not
considered any of the issues on merits including the
maintainability of Exts.P8 and P9 before the District Collector or
the merits of the contentions of either side.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge