R.Manikandan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 1046 Mad

                                                                                    WP.No.20281 of 2021

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 24.01.2022

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              WP.No.20281 of 2021 and
                                              WMP.No.21533 of 2021

                     R.Manikandan                                         ...      Petitioner

                                                           Vs

                     1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                       South Chennai Division,
                       Guindy,
                       Chennai – 600 032
                     2.B.Sekar                                          ...        Respondents

                     Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

                     praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records

                     relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/419/2020 dated

                     13.09.2020 (signed on 13.09.2021) passed by the first respondent, quash

                     the same and consequently forbear the respondents from proceeding further,

                     in view of the law laid down in Vishwas footwear Co., case [(2011 (5) CTC

                     94 (DB)]



                     1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                WP.No.20281 of 2021

                                  For Petitioner    :   Mr.N.Manokaran

                                  For Respondents
                                           R1       :   Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai,
                                                        Government Advocate

                                            R2      :   Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham

                                                        ORDER

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in

Na.Ka.No.A1/419/2020 dated 13.09.2020 (signed on 13.09.2021) passed

by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the

respondents from proceeding further, in view of the law laid down in

Vishwas footwear Co., case [(2011 (5) CTC 94 (DB)]

2. The property comprised in survey Nos.184/1 and 185/1

admeasuring 60 cents situated at Madananthapuram Village, Alandur Taluk,

Chennai owned by Nagabhoosnam. She executed unregistered sale deed

dated 09.04.1984 in favour of the petitioner's mother. The said

Nagabhoosnam died on 10.02.2011. The second respondent is being the son

of the said Nagabhoosnam lodged complaint as against the petitioner's

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

mother before the first respondent with regards to the cancellation of patta

issue in her favour.

3. Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner's mother had executed settlement deed in his

favour on 26.06.2015 vide document No.10259 of 2015. On the strength of

the unregistered sale deed, patta was obtained on 13.06.2015. Thereafter,

the petitioner executed power of attorney on 16.09.2015 in favuor of one,

Kavitha Rani for applying layout plan approval before the CMDA. The

petitioner also executed a gift deed on 19.09.2016 in favour of Corporation

of Chennai for formation of roads and other public utilities. He further

submitted that on receipt of the impugned notice from the first respondent,

the petitioner went to the Office of the first respondent on 17.09.2021 and

informed about the suit filed by him in OS.No.114 of 2020 on the file of the

District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur in respect of the subject property.

When the said suit is very much pending between the petitioner and the

second respondent, the first respondent has no power to entertain the

complaint lodged by the second respondent for cancellation of patta issued

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

in favour of the petitioner. The first respondent cannot decide the title and as

such he has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for cancellation of

patta.

3.1 He further submitted that on the false complaint lodged by the

second respondent, the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch,

ALGSC-II, Greater Chennai registered FIR in crime No.71 of 2020 for the

offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) IPC as against

the petitioner and his mother. FIR is under challenge before this Court in

quash petition in Crl.OP.No.1563 of 2021 and this Court granted interim

stay of all further proceedings and it is pending. In fact, the petitioner also

lodged complaint before the Commissioner of Police and before the

Inspector of Police, T14 Mangadu Police Station, and both are pending for

enquiry. Therefore, when there is a dispute with regards to title, the first

respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for cancellation of

patta. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Bondar Singh & Others Vs. Nihal Singh & Others

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

reported in 2003 (4) SCC 161

(ii) Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., Vs. The District

Collector & others reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94

(iii) Syed Dhasthakeer Vs. Navab John reported in

2012 (6) CTC 892

4. Per contra, the second respondent filed counter and

Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, the learned counsel for the second respondent

submitted that the subject property was never conveyed to the petitioner's

mother by the alleged sale deed dated 09.04.1984. During her lifetime, till

her death on 10.02.2011, she was paying kist for the said land under patta

No.126. After her lifetime, the second respondent was paying kist for the

subject land till the year 2019. The petitioner is a stranger to the property

and forged the signature of his mother and fabricated unregistered sale deed

as if his mother executed the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner's

mother. The alleged sale deed was executed on 09.04.1984, whereas the

petitioner's mother obtained patta in her name only on 13.06.2015.

Immediately after obtaining patta on the strength of the unregistered sale

deed, on 26.06.2015 settlement deed was registered in favour of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

petitioner. Immediately after came to understand, the second respondent

lodged complaint and the same has been registered in Cr.No.71 of 2020 for

so many offences as against the petitioner and his mother. The second

respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

Therefore, the second respondent filed application before the first

respondent to cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioner's mother and

retansferrred in favour of the petitioner under patta Nos.3389 and 3450

respectively.

4.1 He further submitted that the first respondent has ample power

to enquire the application for cancellation of patta and as such, the present

writ petition challenging the notice issued for hearing is not at all

maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mere pendency

of the suit, that too for bare injunction, is not an impediment for the first

respondent to enquire the application for cancellation of patta. The first

respondent need not to go into the title of the property and the patta will be

issued only on possession and enjoyment of the property and after gone

through the documents. The petitioner's mother claimed patta under the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

unregistered sale deed and as such she had no title over the property and

without any title, executed alleged settlement deed in favour of the petitioner.

On the strength of the settlement deed, he obtained patta. In support of his

contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

(i) K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited Vs. Development

Consultant Limited reported in 2008 (8) SCC 564

(ii) Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra

reported in 2009 (2) SCC 532

(iii) Amertham Vs. Thannace and another reported in

2020 (4) CTC 395

5. The first respondent filed counter and Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai,

Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that the

issuance of notice to the petitioner is in order. After issuance of notice, the

first respondent was informed the pendency of the suit in OS.No.114 of

2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur. The appeal

has been filed by the second respondent under the provisions of 31(8) of the

Revenue Standing Order. Accordingly, appeal lies with the first respondent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

and as such the first respondent has jurisdiction to enquire the appeal

submitted by the second respondent. That apart, the first respondent had no

knowledge about the death of the petitioner's mother. The petitioner who

was called for enquiry, must have submitted his written submission to

defence together with a copy of the plaint. Only after going through the

written submission of the petitioner and the copies of the documents relied

upon by him, suitable orders will have been passed. Whereas instead of

appearing for the enquiry, the petitioner straight away challenged the notice

issued for enquiry.

6. Heard, Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent

and Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, the learned counsel for the second respondent.

7. The unregistered sale deed dated 09.04.1984 was executed in

favour of the petitioner's mother in respect of the property comprised in

survey Nos.184/1 and 185/1 admeasuring 60 cents situated at

Madananthapuram Village, Alandur Taluk, Chennai. On the strength of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

unregistered sale deed, the petitioner's mother obtained patta under patta

No.3389 on 13.06.2015. On the strength of the same, the petitioner's mother

executed settlement deed in favour of the petitioner dated 26.06.2015 and

the petitioner also obtained patta under patta No.3450. The said property

originally belonged to the second respondent's mother Nagabhoosnam. She

executed unregistered sale deed in favour of the petitioner's mother. After

came to knowledge about the above deeds and pattas, the second respondent

lodged complaint and the same has been registered in Cr.No.71 of 2020 on

the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, ALGSC-II, Greater

Chennai for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b)

IPC. The second respondent also filed appeal before the first respondent for

cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioner's mother and the

petitioner on 17.02.2020. On receipt of the same, the first respondent issued

notice to the petitioner, the petitioner's mother and the second respondent for

the enquiry to be held on 23.09.2021. Immediately on receipt of the said

notice, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent on 17.09.2021 and

asked to stop the enquiry for the reason that he filed suit in OS.No.114 of

2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur and it is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

pending.

8. On perusal of the plaint in OS.No.114 of 2020, revealed that the

said suit is filed for bare injunction as against the second respondent and

another in respect of the subject property and it is pending without any

interim order. The said suit was filed on 02.12.2020, whereas the second

respondent filed appeal on 17.02.2020 itself. Thus, it is clear that it is an

afterthought by the petitioner filed suit, that too, for bare injunction as

against the second respondent and another. That apart, there is no interim

order in the injunction suit against the second respondent herein.

9. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that when there is title dispute with regards to the subject

property, the first respondent has no authority and jurisdiction to go into the

title over the property. Though the sale deed executed in favour of his mother

is unregistered one, the said document, even though not admissible in

evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. In support of his

contention, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Bondar Singh &

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

Others Vs. Nihal Singh & Others reported in 2003 (4) SCC 161, wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that under the law, a sale deed is

required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to

the vendee. However, the legal position is clear law that a document like the

sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be

looked into for collateral purposes.

10. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Vishwas

Footwear Company Ltd., Vs. The District Collector & others reported in

2011 (5) CTC 94, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held

that on the strength of the title or possession, if any other person makes an

application to the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of that patta

and in the event both the individuals claim title over the property, the

Revenue Divisional officer cannot adjudicate such disputed questions and

accepting the case of the other person, he cannot cancel the patta. The right

course to be adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in such case is only

to refer the applicant who has come before him seeking for cancellation of

patta to Civil court, especially when his claim is disputed by the individual

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

who is holding the patta granted by the competent authority.

11. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Syed

Dhasthakeer Vs. Navab John reported in 2012 (6) CTC 892, wherein this

Court held that when the court is seized of the matter, normally the revenue

authorities should not entertain the petitions for change of patta and the

party should be directed to seek their relief in the civil court.

12. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the second respondent

submitted appeal for cancellation of patta as early as on 17.02.2020,

whereas the suit was filed by the petitioner only on 02.12.2020, that too for

bare injunction. It is also curious to note that the petitioner's mother got

unregistered sale deed as early as on 09.04.1984. Whereas she obtained

patta which is under challenge before the first respondent, only on

13.06.2015. i.e. just before the execution of settlement deed in favour of the

petitioner. On the strength of the unregistered sale deed dated 09.04.1984

and the patta No.3389 dated 13.06.2015, the petitioner's mother executed

settlement deed in favour of the petitioner on 26.06.2015. On the strength of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

the settlement deed, the petitioner obtained patta under patta No.3450 dated

25.09.2015. That apart, the first respondent had no knowledge about the

pendency of the suit before issuance of notice dated 13.09.2020. Though

the said notice dated 13.09.2020, signed only dated 13.09.2021. It was a

typographical error and even then, on the date of signing the said notice, the

first respondent had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit filed by

the petitioner, since the first respondent is not a party to the said suit.

Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are

not helpful to the case on hand.

13. After filing the appeal, the petitioner's mother died on

20.07.2020. Therefore, the first respondent had no knowledge about the

death of the petitioner's mother and the first respondent issued notice to the

petitioner's mother as well as the petitioner and the second respondent for

enquiry to be held on 23.09.2021. No doubt, unregistered sale deed can be

used for collateral purpose. However, the document required to be

registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of

the Registration Act. Such unregistered document can however be used as an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the

Registration Act. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible

from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. A

collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected

by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title

or interest, in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and

upwards. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration,

none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for

the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a

collateral purpose.

14. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and

liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However,

the first respondent is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and

other legal heirs of his deceased mother, R.Neela, if any, and to the second

respondent and, after giving them opportunity of hearing, pass orders on

merits and in accordance with law in the appeal filed by the second

respondent for cancellation of patta subject to the result of the suit in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

OS.No.114 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur

within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

order. No order as to costs.

24.01.2022

lok Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20281 of 2021

To The Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Division, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032

WP.No.20281 of 2021

24.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis