Revenue Records Can Be Corrected After Civil Court Declaration: Kerala High Court Upholds Tahsildar’s Order Allowing Mutation Despite Pending Litigation Over Will

The High Court clarified that revenue authorities are bound to act on existing decrees and that subsequent civil court findings can be given effect to through the statutory mechanism provided under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking to quash orders passed by the revenue authorities refusing to effect the transfer of registry and accept land tax in respect of a property, on the ground that civil disputes challenging the Will in favour of the petitioner were pending.

The matter was decided by Justice Viju Abraham, who observed that “if civil cases which are stated to be pending challenging the Will in favour of the petitioner, if found in favour of the party respondents herein, naturally, there is a mechanism as provided under Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, to make necessary changes in the patta based on the declaration by the competent Civil Court.”

Advocate Gopikrishnan Nambiar represented the petitioners, while Advocate S Nikhil Sankar represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner claimed ownership of the subject property based on a chain of civil court decrees that had attained finality, including the dismissal of second appeals by the High Court and the dismissal of special leave petitions by the Supreme Court. The civil courts had conclusively held that the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest had perfected title over the property by adverse possession.

Subsequently, the predecessor executed a Will in favour of the petitioner. Based on the decrees and the Will, the petitioner applied for the transfer of registry and mutation. After initial refusal, the Tahsildar allowed the application, effected mutation, accepted land tax, and issued possession certificates.

The legal heirs of the original plaintiffs challenged the mutation orders before the revenue authorities, contending that civil proceedings were pending questioning the Will. The appellate and revisional revenue authorities accepted this contention and set aside the mutation, directing the petitioner to approach the civil court again, leading to the present writ petition.

Court’s Observation

The Kerala High Court first noted that the earlier civil litigation between the parties had conclusively attained finality, with categorical findings recognising title in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest. These findings had been upheld up to the Supreme Court, leaving no subsisting title dispute insofar as ownership by adverse possession was concerned.

The Court examined Rule 2 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, and held that the transfer of registry is statutorily mandated when ownership flows from decrees of competent civil courts. It was observed that the Tahsildar had correctly acted upon binding civil court judgments while allowing mutation and accepting land tax.

The Court placed specific reliance on Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, which expressly provides that pattas and revenue records can be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions. It held that the statutory framework itself contemplates situations where civil court declarations at a later stage may require correction of revenue records.

The Court concluded that the appellate and revisional authorities had committed a jurisdictional error by refusing mutation despite existing binding decrees. It clarified that if the pending civil proceedings challenging the Will ultimately succeed, the respondents would be at liberty to invoke Rule 16 and seek appropriate changes in the patta based on such declaration.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the revisional order refusing mutation, restored the Tahsildar’s order permitting transfer of registry, and directed acceptance of land tax from the petitioner.

It was, however, clarified that any future declaration by a competent Civil Court could be acted upon by the revenue authorities in accordance with Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

Cause Title: B.K.N. Pillai @ B.K. Narayana Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:93502)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Chethan Krishna R.

Respondents: Advocate S. Nikhil Sankar

Click here to read/download Judgment