Madras High Court
M.Muthukumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 7 September, 2022
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No. 23938 of 2022
M.Muthukumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Anna Salai,
Tiruvannamalai - 606 601.
2.The Tashildar,
Taluk Office,
Anna Salai,
Tiruvannamalai - 606 601.
3.Kamal Chand Jain ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.05.2022, wherein this
petitioner had requested the first and second respondents herein to cancel
the Patta with respect to the Schedule mentioned property granted in favour
of Kamalchand Jain/third respondent herein and restore the same in the
name of the petitioner's father namely K.R.S.Manicka Mudaliar as stood
earlier.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
For petitioner : Mr.S.Vediappan
For Respondents : M/s.Akila Rajendran (for R.1 & R.2)
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 petition mentioned property granted in favour of the third
respondent 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, Western Half Side of the
land and building situated at Kumara Kovil Street, Door Nos.9, 10, 10A,
New Town Survey No.1343/1, 1344/1, 1345/1 with an 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 Sankaranathan, son of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
K.R.S.Manicka Mudaliar by way of registered sale deed dated 30.04.2014
in Document No.1402 of 2014 on the file of Sub Registrar-I,
Tiruvannamalai.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner the property was
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.56/1997 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 Sankaranathan had executed a
registered Sale deed dated 30.04.2014 in favour of the third
respondent/proposed party in Document No.1402 of 2014 on the file of Sub
Registrar Office-I, Tiruvannamalai District. Subsequently, the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
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 the petitioner's mother filed 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, the said Sankaranathan sold his Western half share measuring an
extent of 2932 sq.ft. Therefore, the above sale is not valid and it is liable to
be cancelled. 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 a representation dated 21.03.2022 requesting not to
make any change in the Revenue Records since the Appeal Suit is pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
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, Sankaranathan
sold the petition mentioned property to the third respondent herein by way
of sale deed in Doc.No.1402/2014, dated 30.04.2014 on the file of Sub
Registrar Office-I, Tiruvannamalai and 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. Hence, the petitioner
made a representation, dated 25.05.2022 to the respondents 1 & 2 to cancel
the Patta in respect of petition 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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
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 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. It is further seen that the petitioner's mother had filed
WP.No.11040 of 2018 before this Court and the same was disposed of on
28.04.2018 by directing the parties not to alienate/encumber the disputed
property. 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 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
Tiruvannamalai and the same was disposed of on 26.07.2019. During the
pendency of the suit, the son (Sankaranathan) 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 30.04.2014 in Document No.1402 of 2014 on the file of
Sub Registrar Office-I, Tiruvannamalai. Pursuant to the same, all the
Revenue Records were mutated in favour of him in the absence of any
interim order. Thus, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in
his proceedings dated 25.03.2013 is 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
respondents and the relief sought for by the petitioner herein 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
authority for disposal of the partition appeal suit. No costs.
07.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
tri
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Anna Salai,
Tiruvannamalai - 606 601.
2.The Tashildar,
Taluk Office,
Anna Salai,
Tiruvannamalai - 606 601.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
tri
W.P.No.23938 of 2022
07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
