JUDGMENT : The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows : “(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider and act upon Ext P3 application as expeditiously as possible within a time limit to be specified by this Hon'ble court. (ii) Grant such other and further reliefs which are just and reasonable under the nature and circumstances of the case. (iii) Allow the petitioner to recover the full costs incurred for the institution and conduct of this writ petition (Civil) from respondent No.3” 2. Heard Sri. Varghese C. Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. A.C. Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. Martin D. Alumkara, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.5. Though notice has been duly served on respondent No.4, there is no appearance for that party. It is common ground that R-4 is supporting the cause of the petitioner and presumably it is on this account that he may not entered appearance despite service of notice. 3. The petitioner herein claims to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property having an extent of 5 cents (2.02 Ares), comprised in survey No.114/1(re-survey No.24/15) of block No.22 of Amballur Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam Revenue District. On the basis of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.1131/2017 dated 20.07.2017 of SRO, Mulanthuruthy executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the 4th respondent had obtained title of the said property covered by Ext.P-1, on the basis of Ext.P-2 registered Will No.278/III/2008 dated 10.11.2008 of SRO, Mulanthuruthy executed by the father of respondents 4 & 5. After the death of the father of respondents 4 & 5, the properties allotted to R-4 & R-5, as per schedules B & A respectively of Ext.P-2 registered Will has been duly mutated in their respective names and it is also stated that the basic land tax has also been accepted from the respondents 4 & 5 in respect of the properties allotted to them, as per B & A schedules of Ext.P-1 Will respectively. Pursuant to the conveyance of a portion of item No.1 of ‘B’ Schedule property of Ext.P-2 Will made by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P-3 application dated 19.08.2017 before the competent authority among respondents 2 & 3, for grant of mutation of the said property as per Ext.P-1, in favour of the petitioner and also for acceptance of basic land tax from the petitioner in respect of the said property. 4. It appears that the 5th respondent has raised an objection before respondents 2 & 3 stating that mutation may not be made, in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P-1, in as much the execution and registration of Ext.P-1 sale deed is against the expressed recitals made by the testator in internal page No.2 of Ext.P-2 registered Will, which reads as follows : “xxx” The English version of the said recital is as follows: “After my demise, if Thomas (R-4) is to execute document in relation to items 1 & 2 of ‘B’ schedule, then my son John @ John.P.Varghese (R-5) shall join with Thomas in such execution of the document and documents executed by Thomas without junction and participation of John will be void and ineffective.” 5. On the basis of the said recital in Ext.P-2 Will, R-5 would contend that R-4 could have validly executed any documents in the matter of conveyance, etc. or any of the portions of items 1 & 2 of ‘B’ Schedule of Ext.P-2 Will only with the junction and involvement of the 5th respondent and that in the instant case, Ext.P-1 registered sale deed has been executed by R-4 in favour of the petitioner, without the junction and involvement of the 5th respondent in any manner and that therefore, the said conveyance is against the recital made by the testator in the said request in favour of R-4, etc. 6. Before getting into the details in this regard, it is also pertinent to refer to the next recital in Ext.P-2 Will, which appears immediately after the aforequoted recital and the same reads as follows: “xxx” 7. 6. Before getting into the details in this regard, it is also pertinent to refer to the next recital in Ext.P-2 Will, which appears immediately after the aforequoted recital and the same reads as follows: “xxx” 7. Therefore, a mere perusal of the immediate next recital as quoted immediately hereinabove would make it clear that the testator has clearly declared in clear and unequivocal terms that after his demise, ‘A’ schedule properties will stand devolved in favour of the 5th respondent and the ‘B’ schedule properties of the said Will, will stand devolved to R-4 and that they have the right to mutate the said properties in the respective names and to pay basic land tax with the revenue authorities concerned and also to make all necessary transactions in exercise of the lawful powers as title holders and owners of the said land including transfer of property. Moreover, it is also made clear that any such transactions in respect of the said property is with all freedom to R-4 & R-5 and that they may enjoy such freedom without any hindrance and without any challenge by any other person. In other words, the testator (father) has made it clear that the enjoyment of the property and right to transfer the property, etc., as far as ‘A’ schedule of the property could be enjoyed by R-5, without any hindrance for anyone, whatsoever including R-4 and further that the same right is also conveyed with equal vigour in the case of R-4 is having ‘B’ schedule property, which cannot be hindered or questioned by anyone including R-5. Therefore, in other words, it can be seen that the first recital quoted hereinabove cannot be understood as a provision, which is restraint of the absolute estate in favour of the 4th respondent consequent to the said bequest made by the testator in favour of the 4th respondent. That apart, it will also be pertinent to refer to the legal position in that regard laid down by this Court in the judgment in Kumaran Nair v. Muhammed Haneefa & another [1989 KHC 329 = 1989 (2) KLT 600], paragraph.5, which reads as follows : “I agree with the appellate judge that what is involved is only a restraint on alienation and not a preemption clause. An absolute estate was created and the impugned clause comes only there after. An absolute estate was created and the impugned clause comes only there after. It could be said that S.10 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable. Ext.A1 being only a testamentary disposition and not a transfer inter vivos. There is no provision in the Indian Succession Act corresponding to S.16 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore resort must be had to S.95 and 138 of the Indian Succession Act. S.95 provides that the legatee is entitled to the full interest of the testator unless it appears that only a restricted interest was intended for him. According to S.138 when a fund is absolutely bequeathed with a direction that it shall be applied or enjoyed in a particular manner the legatee shall be entitled to receive the fund an if the will had contained no such direction. 'Fund' could take in immovable property as well. It cannot be said as provided in S.95 that a restricted interest alone was provided. Absolute right was created. Any provision repugnant to the absolute estate could be ignored as provided in S.138.” 8. It is clearly held by this Court that Sec.95 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides that a legatee is entitled to the full interest of the testator, unless it appears from the Will that only a restricted interest intended for him and further, according to Sec.130 of the Indian Succession Act, when a fund is absolutely bequeathed with a direction that it shall be applied or enjoyed in a particular manner, the legatee shall be entitled to receive the fund, as if, the Will contain the abovesaid provision and that “fund” would take in even immovable property as well. Further that any provision repugnant to the absolute estate could be ignored, as provided in Sec.130A. 9. In the light of these aspects, it is only to be held that the abovesaid contentions of R-5 will not hold good atleast for the limited purpose of consideration of grant of mutation. It is made clear that the abovesaid observations and findings of this Court hereinabove, is only on the limited issue as to whether or not the said objection of R-5 based on the aforesaid recital in Ext.P-2 Will, which is relied on by R-5, would be a valid basis for refusal of the request for grant of mutation in favour of the petitioner. 10. 10. Further it has been borne in mind that after the death of the testator, the respective properties in ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedules of Ext.P-2 registered Will has been mutated in the respective names of the 5th & 4th respondents and basic land tax has also been accepted from them. Since that is the admitted position, the 4th respondent is the registered “land holder” in respect of the property covered by ‘B’ schedule of Ext.P-2 Will, as per which the conveyance has been made in favour of the petitioner, from which a portion of item No.1 of ‘B’ schedule has been conveyed by R-5 as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed. Hence, for the property in question covered by Ext.P-1, the 4th respondent is the registered “land holder”. Sec.5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 deals with “charge of land tax”. Sec.5(2) of the said Act mandates that basic tax charged on any land shall be paid by the “land holder” of that land. “Land holder” has been defined as per Sec.3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, which reads as follows : “3. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) “land holder” means,- (a) in relation to any land held by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), such cultivating tenant; (b) in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955), such Kanam tenant; (c) in relation to any land which has not been surveyed and is not held by a cultivating tenant referred to in sub-clause (a), the proprietor of such land; (d) in relation to any other land, the registered holder for the time being of such land, and includes his legal representatives and assigns and any person who under any law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue due in respect of the land held by him.” 11. In the instant case clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Sec.3(3) will not come into play. Going by the impact of clause (d) of Sec.3(3), the 4th respondent is the registered “land holder” of the land in question. In the instant case clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Sec.3(3) will not come into play. Going by the impact of clause (d) of Sec.3(3), the 4th respondent is the registered “land holder” of the land in question. It is also the admitted case that the 4th respondent has already conveyed the property in question to the petitioner, as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed. Hence, the petitioner is the assignee of the registered “land holder”. Going by the mandate of clause (d) of Sec.3(3), where the registered “land holder” assigns the property, then the assignee will stand in the shoe of the “land holder” as understood in Sec.3(3), more particularly clause (d) thereof. Therefore, in the instant case, the petitioner has the legal right to be treated as a “land holder”, in terms of Sec.3(3)(d) of the abovesaid Act. Sec.4 of the said Act mandates that the arrangement made under the Kerala Land Tax Act shall be a general revenue settlement and that notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, grant, deed or other transactions, the arrangement made under the said Act for the levy of the basic tax shall be deemed to be the general settlement of the revenue settlement of the State. The Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 is not a statutory Rule, as the same has not been framed under the enabling provisions of any parent enactment and hence the same is a non-statutory Rule. The Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 has been framed under the enabling provisions contained in Sec.20 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 envisages that the registered holder of the basic tax register (BTR) should be maintained in all villages and taluk offices. Hence, the provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 will be subservient to the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972, framed thereunder. Therefore, in the light of the abovesaid mandate of law flowing out from Sec.3(3)(d) r/w Sec.5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, the competent revenue officials, like respondents 2 & 3 are under the statutory obligation and duty to collect land tax from the “land holder” as understood in Sec.3(3), in which in the instant case is clause (d) of Sec.3(3). If the said revenue officials do not collect land tax from the “land holder” as understood in Sec.3(3)(d), then it would amount to nothing but abdication of the statutory obligation and duties of such competent revenue officials concerned. It is also clearly held in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules that the summary enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases. The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by Civil Courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions. It has been held by the Apex Court and the various High Courts in a catena of rulings as in Surney v. Inder Kaur [AIR (1996) SC 2823], where grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax, etc., will not amount to creation or extinguishment of title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour the mutations are ordered to pay the land revenue in question. After referring to the Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, this Court has held in para.13 of the judgment in Sainudheen v. State of Kerala [ 2013(1) KHC 437 ] that the mutation granting authority like the Tahsildar, etc., cannot decide on the validity of a document and the title of a previous owner. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Sivasankaran v. Tahsildar [ 2017 (3) KLT 428 ] has again reiterated by referring to Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules that mutation entries in the revenue records by itself will not create or extinguish right, title or interest, in respect of the property and it is only a record for the limited purpose of collection of land revenue. 12. Therefore, the issues paused before the competent revenue officials like the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar and the 3rd respondent-Village Officer is mainly arising out of their statutory obligation under the Kerala Land Tax Act & the Rules framed thereunder, etc., so as to ensure that the land revenue is collected by them from the “land holder” concerned, as understood in Sec.3(3) of the abovesaid Act. In that regard, the mutation granted by the authorities and the officials who are entrusted in the responsibility of considering mutation request and acceptance of basic land tax, etc., cannot be under the impression that they are the forum for determining the questions of title of the party concerned. Very often numerous cases are now-a-days coming up before this Court on these issues, presumably out of the misunderstanding of the competent revenue officials concerned that an application for mutation and questions of acceptance of basic land tax could be decided only after determining the title, etc. The issues posed in this case is a very simple and narrow compass, especially when registered “land holder” as in the instant case has already conveyed and assigned his property to another person like the petitioner and therefore, the simple issue is that such assignee of the registered “land holder” would then become the “land holder” as understood in Sec.3(3)(d). Hence, the abovesaid vested question of title, etc. has raised by the parties are not really relevant and germane for the competent revenue officials like respondents 2 & 3, for their considered decision. Moreover, they are ill-equipped to handle such questions of title, more so particularly, ones that it involves nuanced issues of substantive common law. 13. This Court would also hasten to add that the earlier findings and observations made by this Court regarding the effect of the recitals in Ext.P-2 registered Will is only from the limited perspective of the issues as are arising in the context of application of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax. If any, disputes relative to title arise in any appropriate civil proceedings, the same will have to be decided independently and unenforced and untrammelled by the observations and findings of this Court hereinabove. 14. In the result, it is ordered that the competent authority among respondents 2 & 3 will immediately take up the request made by the petitioner for grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax as made out in Ext.P-3, without any further delay and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will grant the said request of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax, etc., if it is otherwise in order. It is made clear and declared that the competent authority among respondents 2 & 3 cannot reject the said request for mutation, etc., on the present objections raised by R-5 on the scope and ambit of the abovesaid recital in Ext.P-2 Will. Necessary steps in this regard will be completed by the competent authority among respondents 2 & 3, without much delay, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.