Madras High Court
M. Muthukumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 6 September, 2022
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.23817 of 2022
M. Muthukumar .Petitioner
Versus
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer
O/o. the RDO,
Anna Salai,
Tiruvannamalai-606 601.
2. The Tahsildar
Taluk Office
Anna Salai
Tiruvannamalai-606 601.
3. Naresh Chand Jain ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2
herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.05.2022 wherein
the petitioner had requested the respondents 1 & 2 herein, to cancel the
Patta with respect to the schedule mentioned property granted in favour of
Naresh Chand Jain/3rd respondent herein and restore the same in the name
of the petitioner's father, namely, K.R.S.Manicka Mudaliar as stood
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
earlier.
For Petitioner : Mr.S. Vediyappan
For RR 1 and 2 : Ms.Ahila Rajendran
Government Advocate
---
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents
1 & 2 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 25.05.2022,
wherein, the petitioner had requested the respondents 1 & 2 herein, to
cancel the Patta in respect of the schedule mentioned property granted in
favour of the third respondent herein, and to restore the same in the name
of the petitioner's father, namely, K.R.S.Manicka Mudaliar as stood
earlier.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the properties are situated at
Tiruvannamalai Town in Ward No.4, Block No.21, Eastern Half Side of
the land and building situated at Kumara Kovil Street, Door Nos. 9, 10,
10A, New Town Survey No.1342/1A measuring the extent of 0.0066.5
sq.mtr., New T.S.No.1343/2 measuring the extent of 0.0101.0 sq.mtr.,
New T.S.No.1344/2 measuring the extent of 0.0081.0 and New
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
T.S.No.1345/2 measuring the extent of 0.0012.5, measuring a total extent
of 2932 sq.ft., morefully described in the schedule of property herein,
alleged to have been purchased by the third respondent herein, from one
Saravanan, son of K.R.S.Manicka Mudaliar by way of registered sale
deed, dated 19.01.2022 in Document No.172 of 2022 on the file of Sub
Registrar-I, Tiruvannamalai.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the property originally
purchased by the petitioner's father deceased K.R.S.Manicka Mudaliar and
his name was also reflected in the Town Survey Register Extract. The said
K.R.S.Manicka Mudaliar, through his first wife, begot two sons viz.,
Sankaranathan, Saravanan and three daughters. After the death of the first
wife, the said K.R.S. Manicka Mudaliar married the petitioner's mother
viz., Rajakumari as second wife. Since there was a family dispute in
sharing the properties, the petitioner's mother filed a suit in O.S.No.56 of
1997 before the Additional Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, which was finally
re-numbered O.S.No.83 of 2017 before the Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai
and the same was disposed of on 26.07.2019. During the pendency of the
suit, the first wife's son Saravanan had executed a registered Sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
Agreement, dated 28.09.2015 in favour of the third respondent/proposed
party in Document No.2628 of 2015 on the file of Sub Registrar Office-I,
Tiruvannamalai District. Thereafter, the said Saravanan had executed a
General Power of Attorney, dated 01.10.2015 in favour of one Vishal
Chand Jain in Doc.No.2633/2015 on the file of Sub Registrar Office-I,
Tiruvannamalai. In the meanwhile, the third respondent along with his
brothers, tried to take possession of property by using their men and
money power and therefore, the petitioner lodged a police complaint and
his mother filed a Crl.O.P.No.13248 of 2017 before this Court and the
same was allowed on 18.07.2017. It is the further case of the petitioner
that the petitioner's mother filed W.P.No.11040 of 2018 to consider the
petitioner's representation, dated 30.09.2017 and the same was disposed of
by this Court on 28.04.2018 and ordered against the said persons, viz.,
Sankaranathan and Saravanan not to alienate the property or encumber the
property till the disposal of the suit. But the third respondent herein has
violated the order, dated 28.04.2018 and he had executed a Deed of
Cancellation, dated 19.01.2022 in Doc.No.169/2022 on the file of Sub
Registrar Office-I, Tiruvannamalai, cancelling the General Power of
Attorney executed in favour of Vishal Chand Jain and on the same day,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
the said Saravanan sold his Eastern half share measuring an extent of 2932
sq.ft. Hence, the petitioner made a representation, dated 05.03.2022
before the District Registrar to cancel the sale deed already registered.
Again the petitioner sent another representation, dated 21.03.2022
requesting not to make any change in the Revenue Records since the
Appeal Suit is pending on the file of this Court in A.S.No.635 of 2019.
Thereafter, the petitioner came to knowledge that the son of the first wife,
namely, Saravanan sold the schedule mentioned property to the third
respondent herein by way of sale deed in Doc.No.169 of 2022, dated
19.01.2022 on the file of Sub Registrar Office-I, Tiruvannamalai and all
the Revenue Records were mutated in his name. However, the third
respondent violated the order in W.P.No.9215 of 2013 by order dated
23.10.2017. Again, the petitioner made another representation, dated
25.05.2022 to the respondents 1 & 2 to cancel the Patta in respect of
schedule mentioned property granted in favour of the third respondent
herein and to restore the same in the name of the original owner, namely,
K.R.S.Manicka Mudaliar as stood earlier. But, the respondents have not
taken any steps in this regard. Hence this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents 1
& 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.05.2022 and
dispose of the same within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this
Court.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
1 & 2 submitted that since no adverse order is being passed against the
third respondent, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2
and perused the materials placed on record.
7. On a perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the aforesaid
disputed property measuring a total extent of 2932 sq.ft. originally
belonged to the petitioner's father deceased K.R.S.Manicka Mudaliar. He
has two wives. Since there was a family dispute in sharing the properties,
the petitioner's mother filed a suit in O.S.No.56/1997 for partition against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
the other legal heirs before the Additional Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai,
which was finally re-numbered as O.S.No.83 of 2017 before the Mahila
Court, Tiruvannamalai and the same was disposed of on 26.07.2019.
Pending the suit, the son of the first wife had executed a registered Sale
Agreement, dated 28.09.2015 in favour of the third respondent herein in
Document No.2628 of 2015 on the file of Sub Registrar Office-I,
Tiruvannamalai District. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated
26.07.2019 passed by the Court below, the petitioner's mother has
preferred an appeal in A.S.No.635 of 2019 before this Court and the same
is pending for further adjudication. Pending the appeal suit, the petitioner
had sold the schedule mentioned property to the third respondent herein by
way of sale deed, dated 19.01.2022 in Document No.169 of 2022 on the
file of Sub Registrar Office-I, Tiruvannamalai. Pursuant to the same, all
the Revenue Records were mutated in favour of the third respondent in the
absence of any interim order. Thus, the order passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer in his proceedings, dated 25.03.2013 was quashed and
the writ petitioner as well as the other contesting respondents are at liberty
to adjudicate the matter before the Competent Civil Court and only after
attaining finality in civil litigations, the application seeking grant of patta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
or modification shall be entertained. However, till date, the property was
not allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court cannot issue any
affirmative direction to the petitioner and the relief sought for by the
petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the entire records, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However,
liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the
Competent Civil Court to decide the issue with regard to partition after the
disposal of the appeal suit. No costs.
06.09.2022
Index:Yes / No
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
msm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer
O/o. the RDO, Anna Salai,
Tiruvannamalai-606 601.
2. The Tahsildar
Taluk Office, Anna Salai
Tiruvannamalai-606 601.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23817 of 2022
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
msm
W.P.No.23817 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
