1. Plaintiff in a suit for mandatory injunction directing the revenue authorities to effect mutation in respect of the plaint schedule property has come up in the appeal aggrieved by the reversal of the decree granted in his favour.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:

                  Plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule properties as per Sale Deed Nos.536/05 and 2100/06 registered with Poonjar Sub Registrar Office. After purchasing the properties he applied for transferring the revenue registry in June, 2007. Since the revenue authorities did not take any steps to mutate the properties in the name of the plaintiff, he approached several authorities including Lok Adalath. The plaintiff’s request was denied by the defendants on the pretext of some reasons or another. The defendants filed a written statement resisting the suit and contending that the property covered by the plaintiff’s sale deeds is situated in old Survey No.2651 and the Re-Survey of these properties stated in the title deed is re-Survey No.8 in Block No.78 of Koottickal Village. The plaintiff claims that he got this property from its prior owners Thomas George, Joseph Francis and Joseph Alphonsa. It is further contended that as per the title deeds of the plaintiff this property forms part of the property as per Patta No.17923/77 and 17936/77 of the Land Tribunal, Kottayam. The properties covered by these pattas are comprised in Old Survey Nos.2651 and as per the Re-survey records the property having an extent of 06.25.60 hectors in Re-Survey No.8 in Block No.78 belongs to Ashly Estate Limited, and they are paying tax in respect of Thandapper Account No.3 of Koottickal Village. As per the Basic Tax Register of the above properties, the old Survey numbers are 2641, 2642, 2643 and 2644. Though the Survey Superintendent of Kanjirappally has passed orders in favour of the plaintiff for transferring the properties in the name of the plaintiff as per order in S.A.Nos.12/02, 13/02 and 14/02, an enquiry is pending in respect of the proceedings of the Survey Superintendent and that apart the office of the S.B.C.I.D., Kottayam has called for a report of these properties from the Village Office and that the plaintiff’s application cannot be considered at this stage. On behalf of the plaintiff Exts.A1 to A12 documents were marked and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of defendants Exts.B1 to B6 were marked and DW1 was examined. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

                  “1. Is there any valid ground on the defendant’s side in refusing the transfer of registry in respect of the plaint schedule properties in the name of the plaintiff?

                  2. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a mandatory injunction as prayed for?

                  3. Relief and cost?”

                  On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the trial court decreed the suit directing the defendants to transfer the Revenue Registry of the plaint schedule properties in the name of the plaintiff and to accept the tax. Aggrieved the defendants preferred A.S.No.85 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Pala. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the findings rendered by the trial court cannot be sustained and accordingly interfered with the findings rendered by the trial court and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and hence, the present appeal.

3. On 30.09.2015 the appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal, which read as under:

                  “(1) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing in the judgment and decree of the trial court when the defendants have no case that Exhibit A12 proceedings in S.A 12/2002, 13/2002 and 14/2002 are vitiated on facts or law and that patta was issued in respect of Numbers are included in block No. 78 Sy. 8/1/1, 1/21/3 of Kottickal Village.

                  (2) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in the correctness and genuineness of the patta issued under the under section 72(K)of the Land Reforms Act in a proceedings or a suit filed by the pattadar or his assignee for effecting mutation under transfer of registry rules without even a contention in written statement doubting its genuineness or raising counter claim counter filed by the defendants authorities.

                  (3) Whether the lower appellate court was having the authority to examine the correctness or otherwise of B1 and B2 purchase certificate issued under Section 72 K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act which is conclusive proof of possession of the property by the plaintiff and his vendor under A1 and A2.

                  (4) Whether the lower appellate courts erred on law to hold that B1 and B2 patta issued under 72 K of the Land Reforms Act in 1977 is not proof of possession of ownership by the plaintiff and his vendors.

                  (5) Whether the courts below was justified not to apply the correct principles of law invalid in the above case where in under Rule 14 to 16 of the Transfer of the Registry Rules provide for a summary enquiry and decision in the respect of transfer of registry cases. The lower appellate court failed to not that the plaintiff's case is for mutating his name in the registry records for enabling him to pay the taxes while no legal right has been agitated or revision of patta is sought for by the Government Authorities and if such legal right is agitated then only civil court has any jurisdiction to adjudicate such matter.

                  (6) The courts below failed to judicially note that whether under Section 8 of Kerala Land Assignment Act, the B1 and B2 pattas are valid, and un impeachable except under proper proceedings as per the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963.”

4. Heard Smt.Uthara Ashokan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.K.Denny Devassy, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents-State.

5. Smt.Uthara Asokan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the first appellate court erred egregiously in reversing the judgment of the trial court. She asserted before this Court that the revenue authorities cannot sit on the application for Transfer of Registry and that the whole purpose of the Transfer of Registry is for fiscal purpose and for collection of tax. The question of title cannot be considered by the revenue authorities. The mistake in the assignment of re-survey number is not a ground to deny the mutation and that the prior owner has already been granted the mutation as evident from the possession certificate which discloses the allotment of Thandaper number. In support of her contention relied on the decisions of the Single Bench of this Court in Santhosh Jacob v. Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha Taluk [2024 (2) KHC 665] and Marunnoli Vijayalakshmi and Others v. Tahsildar, Koyilandi Taluk and Others [2019 (1) KHC 142]. The learned counsel further pointed out that the first appellate court had conducted a roving enquiry on the title of the appellant and came into conclusion that the prior owner did not have any right over the property in question.

6. Per contra, Sri.Dennis Devassy, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State resisted the plea of the appellant and contended that going by Ext.B6 proceedings, the request of the plaintiff to effect mutation cannot be accepted. He further pointed out that the allotment of the re-survey number in the Adalath was subsequently cancelled on compliance. He further pointed out that the re-survey allotted to the appellant’s properties actually belongs to Ashly Estate and therefore, effecting mutation would certainly affect the proprietary rights of the third party and in such circumstances, it is the duty of the revenue authorities to look into the issues appropriately and decide as to whether the Transfer of Registry should be accepted or not. Thus, according to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the judgment rendered by the first appellate court is perfectly sustainable.

7. In reply, Smt.Uthara Asokan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed before this Court a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3171o of 2017 dated 06.06.2023, wherein the proceedings of the Director of Surveys canceling the Survey Adalath file in SA.Nos.12/2002, 13/2002 and 14/2002 were challenged before this Court and that the proceedings were interfered by this Court and the matter was sent back for further consideration and that the reliance placed by the respondents to the proceedings of the Director of Surveys cannot be accepted.

8. In the light of the above submission, this Court had passed an order on 17.03.2026, which reads as under :

                  “ Heard in part.

                  2. The learned Senior Government Pleader is directed to obtain instructions as to the status of the enquiry as regards the veracity of the claims of the parties as stated in the written statement. The learned Senior Government Pleader shall also state before this Court as to whether any notice was issued to the appellant or the predecessor-in-interest before cancelling the allotment of the re-survey in respect of the plaint schedule property.

                  3. The instructions shall be peremptorily obtained by the next posting date. It is made clear that, if instructions are not obtained, this Court will proceed to pass appropriate orders in the appeal.”

9. When the matter came up for consideration on 31.03.2026, this Court granted time to the learned Government Pleader to obtain specific instructions as regards the status of direction issued by this Court in judgment dated 06.06.2023 in W.P.(C)No.31710 of 2017. Finding that the instructions are not being furnished to the Senior Government Pleader, this Court directed the Land Revenue Commissioner to be present in Court for further consideration. Accordingly, an order dated 01.04.2026 was passed. On 06.04.2026, the Land Revenue Commissioner was present in Court and furnished a report which is extracted as under:

                  “  Vide Judgment dated 06.06.2023 in WP(c) No.31710/2017 this Hon'ble Court directed the Land Revenue Commissioner to hear the petitioners and examine all their documents and to serve them the copies of the materials or reports which may be relied against them, thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action as expeditiously as is possible adverting specifically to the documents relating to the land bought-in by the Government from Ashley Estates'.

                  Based on this order Dr.Alex Jacob the Petitioner in the WP(c) filed an application on 10.07.2023 to provisionally accept the land tax. The Commissioner directed Kottayam District Collector to provisionally accept the land tax in compliance of the Judgment. The documents necessary for hearing petitioners were obtained from District Collector, Kottayam on 28.01.2025.

                  In the meanwhile, the Petitioner filed WP(c) No.12342/2025 for a direction to implement the Judgment dated 06.06.2023 in a time bound manner. The Hon'ble High Court disposed this Writ Petition with the following direction.

                  "The 2nd respondent the Land Revenue Commissioner shall comply with the direction contained in Ext. P1 at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment ". On the basis of this Judgment, the Land Revenue Commissioner heard the parties on 22.08.2025. But, for deciding the matter, clarification was needed on certain important points.

                  (i) Whether the original survey number of the petitioner Dr.Alex Jacob and another is 2651 or 2641 to 2644.

                  (ii) Whether the properties held by the Petitioners were part of the bought-in land.

                  (iii) Whether all extent of 2641 to 2644 are bought-in land.

                  For ascertaining these aspects, the land has to be surveyed. Therefore a letter was sent to the District Collector, Kottayam on 23.01.2026 to conduct a joint verification by Survey and Revenue Departments of the entire property in the disputed survey numbers and demarcate Government bought-in land and submit a report within two weeks. But, the report has not yet been received. The report should be the basis on which the Land Revenue Commissioner has to take a decision in the matter, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(c) 31710/2017.

                  It is reported by the District Collector, Kottayam, vide letter No. L11-581/16(41001/2010) dated 04/04/2026 that instruction was given to Deputy Director, Survey and Tahsildar (LR), Kanjirappally to conduct a joint survey and submit a report before 10.02.2026. It is also reported that the Deputy Director, Survey has informed about the requirement of perambulation of the land by the Taluk Surveyor before conducting the joint survey. Hence the District Collector has directed the Tahsildar (LR), Kanjirappally on 23.02.2026 to contact Deputy Director, Survey and take necessary steps and report compliance. It is further reported by the District Collector, Kottayam, that "Since the land to be surveyed is very vast having an area of 9.13.60 hectors, a total 3 months time is needed to complete the survey process after joint verification."

                  Hence, it is humbly submitted that further action in pursuance of the Judgment dated 06.06.2023 in WP(c) 31710/2023 will be completed upon receipt of the report of the District Collector, Kottayam, without any further delay. A report in the matter will be filed before the Hon'ble High Court as soon as the process is finalized. This report may kindly be accepted and further action may be dropped.”

10. In the light of these facts this Court felt it expedient that the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal should be reframed as follows:

                  (a) Whether the failure on the part of respondents to effect mutation in respect of the appellant’s property is justifiable?

                  (b) Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court especially in the light of Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act?

                  (c) Whether Rules 14 to 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 enable the respondents to conduct a roving enquiry as regards the title of the appellant's property?

11. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to succeed for multiple reasons.

12. The primary reason which this Court feels that the appellant must succeed is that, while conducting an enquiry under Rules 14 to 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, the Revenue authorities are not expected to decide the question of title. This principle is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of this Court in Santhosh Jacob v. Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha Taluk [2024 (2) KHC 665] and Marunnoli Vijayalakshmi and Others v. Tahsildar, Koyilandi Taluk and Others [2019 (1) KHC 142].

13. Secondly, the reason now stated by the respondents is that there is a mistake in allotting the re-survey number in respect of the appellant’s property. The first appellate court seems to have overreached the scope of the suit and have concluded based on the oral testimony of PW2 that the prior vendor did not have any title in respect of property covered in re-survey number 2651. It is pertinent to mention that the documents produced by the plaintiff-appellant clearly establish the fact that the prior vendor was granted mutation and was allotted Thandaper number. If that be so, there is no rhyme or reason as to why the change of Thandaper number in favour of the appellant cannot be effected.

14. Moreover, the first appellate court failed to appreciate the fact that the whole purpose of effecting mutation is only for collection of tax. Merely because the mutation is effected in the revenue records, that by itself will not confer title on the party and the question of title is always subject to judicial decisions. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court was perfectly justified in decreeing the suit.

15. Thirdly, the sole reason not to effect the change of mutation in favour of the appellant is that the Survey number allotted in the re-survey Adalat has since been cancelled by the Director of Surveys. In this regard, this Court must notice the fact that the learned Single Judge of this Court had interfered with the proceedings in judgment dated 06.06.2023 in W.P.(C) No.31710/2017. Going by the report of the Land Revenue Commissioner, the directions issued by this Court in the judgment afore have not been complied with and that the said proceedings is likely to consume further time. Therefore, the further question before this Court would be whether the appellant should wait till the said proceedings is completed.

16. In the considered view of this Court, it will be wholly unjustifiable to ask the appellant to wait till the proceedings are completed. At any rate, the change in the Transfer of Registry is not depending upon the proceedings for allotment of the re-survey number. Still further, the respondents cannot deny the fact that the plaint schedule property stood mutated in favour of the previous vendor. Therefore, irrespective of so called mistake is any in the allotment of re-survey number, why, transfer of registry cannot be effected with reference to the old Survey number is not explained before this court. The respondents have no explanation as to why despite the previous owner being granted the Thandaper number, the Transfer of Registry cannot be effected in favour of subsequent purchaser.

17. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court is inclined to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant as follows:

                  (a) On the face of record and on the basis of the reasoning offered by the respondents, this Court is of the view that the respondents are not justified in refusing to effect mutation in respect of the appellant’s property.

                  (b) The first appellate court could not have reversed the findings of the trial court especially in the light of the fact that Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act evidences exclusive title and possession of the property.

                  (c) The proceedings under Rules 14 to 16 do not envisage a decision on the title of the property and that the transfer of Registry is being done only for fiscal purposes and for collection of revenue.

                  Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed by reversing the judgment and decree in A.S.No.85 of 2009 and restoring the judgment and decree of the trial court. The respondents are directed to effect mutation in respect of the property within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.