Madras High Court
V.Eswaran vs The District Collector on 5 April, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
V.Eswaran ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The District Collector,
Theni,
Theni District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Theni,
Theni District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of Revenue Divisional Office,
Tahsildar Nagar, Thamaraikulam,
Periyakulam,
Theni District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Ullavar Sandai Road,
Theni, Theni District.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
5.The Zonal Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Ullavar Sandai Road,
Theni, Theni District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to enquire into the
petitioner complaint dated 30.12.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthilkumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court for the issue of a Mandamus
directing the first respondent to enquire the petitioner's complaint dated
30.12.2019.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that the properties, in respect of which the
present proceedings have been initiated, belonged to one Veerathevar and
Sivanammal. One S.Chinnathai had filed a suit O.S.No.71 of 1985 on the file of
the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam, claiming partition of her share in the suit 'A'
and 'B' schedule properties. The suit was filed against her mother and siblings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
3.The petitioner would submit that Chinnathai is his mother-in-law's sister.
After an elaborate trial, the learned Sub Judge, Periyakulam, had decreed the suit
stating that Chinnathai and the others were entitled to 1/6th share in the 'A'
schedule property and dismissed the suit with reference to the 'B' schedule
property stating that the 'B' schedule property was the self acquired property of
the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 in the suit. An appeal was
preferred against the said judgment and decree by the fourth defendant therein in
A.S.No.57 of 1993 before the Principal District Court, Madurai. A cross appeal
was also filed by Chinnathai with reference to the disallowed portion. The appeal
was dismissed and the cross appeal was allowed, thereby granting a partition with
reference to both the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The cross appeal was
allowed holding that the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 were entitled to 1/6 th
share in the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The fourth defendant, Swaminathan,
has preferred a second appeal before this Court in S.A.No.1773 of 1996 and when
the second appeal was posted for final hearing, the appellant died leaving behind
the respondents 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. Since no steps were taken to bring on
record the legal heirs, the second appeal was dismissed as abated. Thereafter,
proceeding for passing of final decree was initiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
4.It is the further case of the petitioner that one Chinnasamy, who was the
third defendant and the maternal uncle of his wife, had executed a Will in respect
of his 1/6th share in favour of the petitioner's wife, Malathi. Pending the final
decree proceedings, Malathi, the wife of the petitioner herein, had died on
01.12.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was cleaning the house
after her demise, he discovered the Will executed by Chinnasamy in favour of
Malathi. Therefore, he had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.152 of
2016 to mark the said Will. This application was allowed on 09.03.2016. In the
light of the Will, it is the case of the petitioner that he had to be included as joint
pattadhar and he had made an application to the fourth respondent. However,
there has been no response to the same. Hence, the above writ petition.
5.When the matter was taken up today, the learned Government Advocate
for the respondents has produced a proceeding of the fourth respondent dated
28.02.2019 to show that the request for grant of patta has been rejected on
28.02.2019, against which an appeal has been filed by the petitioner on
18.03.2019 even before the filing of this writ petition. This fact has been
suppressed by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
6.In the said order, it has been clearly stated that the final decree
proceedings were yet to attain finality and without the final decree, especially
when there was serious contest to the Will, the fourth respondent was not in a
position to grant patta and stating so, the request has been rejected. No exception
can be taken to this order. This order has not been quoted by the petitioner.
7.Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Speaking : Yes / No 05.04.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
mm
To
1.The District Collector,
Theni,
Theni District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Theni,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of Revenue Divisional Office,
Tahsildar Nagar, Thamaraikulam,
Periyakulam,
Theni District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Ullavar Sandai Road,
Theni, Theni District.
5.The Zonal Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Ullavar Sandai Road,
Theni, Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
05.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
