Madras High Court
V.Selvi vs The Regional Transport Authority on 24 February, 2021
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.Nos.359 and 360 of 2021 and
C.M.P.Nos.3069 and 3070 of 2021
V.Selvi ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.359 of 2021
A.Venkatesan ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.360 of 2021
Vs.
1. The Regional Transport Authority,
Virudhunagar.
2. M.Parameswaran
4. D.M.Maheswaran ... Respondents 1, 2 and 4 in
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021
3. K.Devi ... 3rd respondent in C.R.P.No.359 of 2021
3. V.Kumaravel ... 3rd respondent in C.R.P.No.360 of 2021
Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India against the order dated 08.12.2020 made in M.V.Nos.22 and 23 of
2016 on the file of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai reversing
the order dated 06.02.2016 made in proceedings in R.No.31111/A5/2016
and R.No.31112/A5/2015 respectively passed by the Regional Transport
Authority, Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mukunth
For Respondents : Mr.S.Jaganathan
Government Advocate for R1
Mr.Radhagopalan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.Padmanaban for R2
COMMON ORDER
Since the issues involved in both the Revision Petitions are one and
the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.
2. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article
227 of Consitution of India against the order dated 08.12.2020 made in
M.V.Nos.22 and 23 of 2016 on the file of State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai reversing the order dated 06.02.2016 made in
proceedings in R.No.31111/A5/2016 and R.No.31112/A5/2015 respectively
passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar.
3. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties are
mentioned as per their ranks in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
4. The plaintiff, who is the 2nd respondent has filed a suit in
O.S.no.12 of 2006 as against the legal heirs of the 1st defendant, who had
died. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of 1st defendant and the 1st
defendant maried the 6th defendant in the year 1954. The 1st defendant,
his borther, Santhana thevar and Ganesan sold some of their ancestral
properties and started Velmurugan Tyres Rebutton - Retrading Company
works [hereinafter referred to as family business]. The 1st defendant and
his two brothers partitioned their Hindu undivided family movable properties
by a deed daed 01.04.1973. In the said deed, the 1st defendant was
allotted B schedule properties, in consequence, the 1st defendant and his
brother Santhana thevar and Ganesan with their mother Kaluvayee ammal
entered into another partition deed for the same joint family business and
the 1st defendant was allotted B schedule properties and they are
described as 2nd schedule properties in the suit. Thereafter, the 1st
defendant had developed illegal intimacy with one Jeya, who was arrayed
as 7th defendant and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are their children. However,
the plaintiff was in good relationship with his father, 1st defendant. The 1st
defendant, who was in the clutches of the said Jeya and her children were
acting against the interest of the Hindu Undivided family and started
transferring and effecting encumbrance of schedule properties. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
plaintiff, being the only legitimate son born out of the wed lock between the
defendants 1 and 6, has filed a suit for partition of his half share.
5. In contrary, written statement was filed by the defendants 1, 2 and
5. The 1st defendant had stated that he married 6th defendant in the year
1958 and divorced her on 27.09.1961 before Panchayathdars, as per the
caste custom prevailing in Kallar Community. From the year 1961, there is
no relationship between the 1st and 6th defendant and the 6th defendant
was settled fully and finally, and she also married a person, who was
running rice business at Thirupparankundram. The allegation that Jeya is
in illegitimate relationship with the 1st defendant is false and she is legally
wedded wife of the 1st defendant. Already, the plaintiff had received his
share, as per the family arrangements and that he has no right to demand
50% share in the suit property and the same belongs to the defendants 1 to
6. The 5th defendant, who is a bank has filed a separate written
statement stating that the property belongs to Jeya w/o Mayandi and she is
the absolute owner of the property. The said property was originally
purchased by Jeya from A.M.M.Arunachalam and his son
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
M.A.Murugappan, represented by his father, which was a joint family
property on 19.09.1979. The bank has been occupying the said premises
since 1990 by paying a rent of Rs.11,760/- till 15.04.2003. Lease deed
was executed for a period from march 1990 to March 2000 and now it has
been rernewed for a further period of 10 years commencing from
09.03.2000 to 08.03.2010 and the rent after renewal is fixed as Rs.24,000/-
per month from 16.04.2003 till 08.03.2005 and with 25% increase in rent
from 09.03.2005 to 08.03.2010, ie., Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore,
there is no cause of action against the said bank and that the bank is
entitled to hold property towards security for loan, is the averment of the
5th defendant.
7. The court below upon considering the pleadings, averments and
the documents placed on record had passed a preliminary decree in favour
of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff is entitled to 5/8 share in the suit
properties.
8. Further, the 1st respondent, viz., Regional Transport Authority,
Virudhunagar, upon hearing the parties on several dates and on persuing
the judgments relied on by the parties and the arguments put forth on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
either side, by proceedings dated 06.02.2016 in R.Nos.31111/A5/2015 had
allowed the transfer of permit in respect of Stage Carriage TN 64/2293
plying on the route (i) Madurai to Kovilpatti (via) Thirumangalam,
Virudhunagar and Sattur (ii) Madurai to Elayiramannai (via)
Thirumangalam, Virudhunagar and Sattur and (iii) Madurai to Virudhunagar
touching Melakottai from the name of Tmt. Devi to Tmt. V.Selvi; and
through Proceedings No.31112/A5/2015 dated 06.02.2016 had allowed the
transfer of permit in respect of Stage Carriage TN 47/U0333 plying on the
route Elayirampannai to Madurai from the name of V.Kumaravel to
A.Venkatesan and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
"In view of the above said observations, I, the Regional
Transport Authority, Virudhunagar district in exercise of powers
conferred on me as per Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, do hereby allowed the transfer of bus permit TN 64/2293
plying on the route Madurai to Kovilpatti (via) Thirumangalam,
Virudhunagar Sattur and from Madurai to Virudhunagar
touching Melakottai with endorsement of permit for the portions
plying in Madurai and Tuticorin districts from the name of
K.Devi of Namakkal to V.Selvi of Tiruchengode along with the
spare bus permit bearing Registration No.TN04K7887.
The transferee is liable to produce the registration
Certificates of the vehicles duly transferred in her name along
with permit with valid tax, fitness certificate, insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
certificate etc., within 4 months from the date of receipt of this
order failing which sanction hereby accorded will be revoked
under rule 213(1) of Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1989
without further notice."
"In view of the above said observations, I, the Regional
Transport Authority, Virudhunagar district in exercise of powers
conferred on me as per Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, do hereby allowed the transfer of bus permit TN
47U/0333 plying on the route "Elayirampanni to Madurai (via)
Sattur, Virudhunagar, Thirumangalam with independent Shuttle
Trips between Kovilatti to Madurai (via) Sattur, Virudhunagar,
Thirumangalam with endorsement of permit for the portions
plying in Madurai disitrict from the name of Thiru.V.Kumaravel
of Namakkal to Thiru.A.Venkatesan of Tiruchengode.
The transferee is liable to produce the Registration
Certificate of the vehicle duly transferred in his name along with
the permit with valid tax, fitness certificate, insurance certificate
etc., within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order failing
which sanction hereby accorded will be revoked under Rule
213(1) of Tamilnadu Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 without further
notice."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
9. As against the said orders, the 2nd respondent / plaintiff has
preferred appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by way of
M.V.Appeal No.22 of 2016 and M.V.Appeal No.23 of 2016. The said
authority by order dated 08.12.2020 respectively had set aside the said
proceedings. Challenging the same, the said V.Selvi and A.Venkatesan/
petitioners are before this Court, by way of these Revision Petitions.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in detail and
perused the documents placed on record.
11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
counsel for the 2nd respondent have filed a Joint memo and the present
Revision petitions may be disposed of on the terms prescribed in the Joint
Memo dated 11.03.2021, he pleaded.
12. The Joint Memo of Compromise dated 11.03.2021 in
C.R.P.No.359 of 2021 is recorded and the conditions are as follows:-
" 1. The 4th respondent herein originally owned the bus
permit for the route Madurai to Kovilpatti. He sold the same to
the 3rd respondent on 20.02.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
2. The 4th respondent is the step brother of the 2nd
respondent (Mr.Parameswaran). The said 2nd respondent filed
a suit for partition in O.S.no.12 of 2006 on the file of IV
Additional District, Madurai. One of the suit property is bus
bearing No.TN 59J 2588 and the same is mentioned as Item
No.4 in 'B' schedule property. The suit was decreed on
10.01.2013 granting 5/8th shares to the 2nd respondent.
Aggrieved by the decree, the 4th respondent (Maheswaran)
preferred A.S.No.145 of 2017 on the file of Madurai Bench of
the Madras High Court. The Appellate Court granted stay of
passing of final decree alone and the appeal is pending
disposal.
3. That being so, the 3rd respondent purchased the
permit along with the vehicle from the 4threspondent and the
3rd respondent subsequently filed the Transfer application for
transfer of permit on the route "Madurai to Kovilpatti" in favour
of the petitioner in the Civil Revision petition. Coming to know
of the same the 2nd respondent filed an objection for rejection
of the said transfer of permit on the ground that there is a
decree in his favour. The Regional Transport Authority granted
the transfer of permit from the name of the 3rd respondent in
the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the
2nd respondent filed appeal no.22/2016 before the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the same was
allowed on 08.12.2020. Challenging the order of the Tribunal,
the petitioner has filed the above said Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
4. When the matter came up for admission, the Counsel
for the 2nd respondent took notice and submitted that he may
not have any objection for the petitioner to run the vehicle on
the route provided that the petitioner gives an undertaking that
she will not alienate or transfer the permit till the disposal of the
first appeal, i.e., A.S.No.145/2019 on the file of the Madurai
Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner also agreed to
the same.
5. Since both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have
agreed as stated above, it is prayed that this Court may be
pleased to dispose of the above said Civil Revision Petition by
recording the above terms agreed to by petitioner and 2nd
respondent and thus render justice."
13. Also, the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 11.03.2021 in
C.R.P.No.360 of 2021 is recorded and the conditions are as follows:-
" 1. The 4th respondent herein originally owned the bus
permit for the route Elayirampanni to Madurai. He sold the
same to 3rd respondent on 09.05.2012.
2. The 4th respondent is the step brother of the 2nd
respondent (Mr.Parameswaran). The said 2nd respondent filed
a suit for partition in O.S.no.12 of 2006 on the file of IV
Additional District, Madurai. One of the suit property is bus
bearing No.TN 58J 9511 and the same is mentioned as Item
No.9 in 'B' schedule property. The suit was decreed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
10.01.2013 granting 5/8th shares to the 2nd respondent.
Aggrieved by the decree, the 4th respondent (Maheswaran)
preferred A.S.No.145 of 2017 on the file of Madurai Bench of
the Madras High Court. The Appellate Court granted stay of
passing of final decree alone and the appeal is pending
disposal.
3. That being so, the 3rd respondent purchased the
permit along with the vehicle from the 4th respondent and the
3rd respondent subsequently filed the Transfer application for
transfer of permit on the route "Elayirampanni to Madurai" in
favour of the petitioner in the Civil Revision petition. Coming to
know of the same the 2nd respondent filed an objection for
rejection of the said transfer of permit on the ground that there
is a decree in his favour. The Regional Transport Authority
granted the transfer of permit from the name of the 3rd
respondent in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the
same, the 2nd respondent filed appeal no.23/2016 before the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the same was
allowed on 08.12.2020. Challenging the order of the Tribunal,
the petitioner has filed the above said Civil Revision Petition.
4. When the matter came up for admission, the Counsel
for the 2nd respondent took notice and submitted that he may
not have any objection for the petitioner to run the vehicle on
the route provided that the petitioner gives an undertaking that
she will not alienate or transfer the permit till the disposal of the
first appeal, i.e., A.S.No.145/2019 on the file of the Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner also agreed to
the same.
5. Since both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have
agreed as stated above, it is prayed that this Court may be
pleased to dispose of the above said Civil Revision Petition by
recording the above terms agreed to by petitioner and 2nd
respondent and thus render justice."
14. The present Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of in terms of
Joint Memo and the same shall form part and parcel of the record of the
Civil Revision Petitions, namely, C.R.P.Nos.359 and 360 of 2021.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
24.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Order
ssd
To
1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai
2. The Regional Transport Authority,
Virudhunagar.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.5390 of 2020
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
C.R.P.Nos.359 and 360 of 2021 and
C.M.P.Nos.3069 and 3070 of 2021
24.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
