Madras High Court
R.Gomathi vs The Tahsildar on 18 April, 2023
WP No.3805 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18-04-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.3805 of 2017
And
WMP No.3870 of 2017
R.Gomathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar,
Coimbatore (North),
Coimbatore.
2.S.Manimegalai
3.S.Manikandan
4.S.Manoranjan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4816/2016/E2,
dated 30.12.2016 and to quash the same.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.3805 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chandra Prabu
For Respondent-1 : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
For Respondents-2 to 4 : Mr.N.Manokaran
ORDER
The patta and sub division granted by the first respondent in
proceedings dated 30.12.2016 in favour of the respondents 2 to 4, is sought
to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner of the
property comprised in S.F. No.743, bearing Door No.7/44A, Kalapatti
Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District and the husband of the second
respondent was the tenant in the said house property.
3. The dispute aroused between the petitioner and the husband
of the second respondent, who is the father of the respondents 3 and 4 and
the parties were resorted to civil litigations and the Second Appeal No.782
of 2006 ended in favour of the respondents 2 to 4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.3805 of 2017
4. The SLP filed by the petitioner in SLP (Civil) No.8980 of
2016 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India on 13.05.2016.
Thus the civil rights of the parties were crystallised through civil
proceedings upto the Apex Court of India. Hence, there is no infirmity in
respect of the patta and sub division granted by the Tahsildar in favour of
the respondents 2 to 4.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly raised a ground
that at the time of delivering the judgment in Second Appeal No.782 of
2016, the husband of the second respondent died and therefore, the
judgment delivered against the dead person is null and void. In this
connection, Order 22, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that
“no abatement by reason of death after hearing”.
6. The Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, whether the
cause of action survives or not, there shall be no abatement by reason of the
death of either party between the conclusion of the hearing and the
pronouncing of the judgment, but judgment may in such case be pronounced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.3805 of 2017
notwithstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as if it
had been pronounced before the death took place.”
7. As far as the Second Appeal between the parties are
concerned, the hearing was completed during the lifetime of the husband
and the second respondent and the death occurred after hearing and
therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment
delivered in the Second Appeal becomes null and void is unacceptable.
8. The Apex Court in the case of N.P. Thirugnanam vs. Dr.R.
Jagan Mohan Rao [(1995) 5 SCC 115], wherein in paragraph-3, it has
been held as under:-
“3. Rule 6 of Order 22 provides that:
“6. No abatement by reason of death
after hearing.— Notwithstanding
anything contained in the foregoing
rules, whether the cause of action
survives or not, there shall be no
abatement by reason of the death of
either party between the conclusion
of the hearing and the pronouncing of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.3805 of 2017
the judgment, but judgment may in
such case be pronounced
notwithstanding the death and shall
have the same force and effect as if it
had been pronounced before the
death took place.”
In the face of the explicit language in Rule 6 of
Order 22, there can be no abatement by reason of
the death of any party between the conclusion of
the hearing and the pronouncement of the
judgment. It may be pronounced, notwithstanding
the death, and shall have the same force and effect
as if the judgment had been pronounced before the
death took place. Therefore, the contention that the
judgment and decree of the appellate court is a
nullity is devoid of substance.”
9. Therefore, the Tahsildar issued the patta and sub division
based on the civil rights, which were crystallised between the parties. Thus
this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in respect of the patta and
sub division granted by the Tahsildar in favour of the respondents 2 to 4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.3805 of 2017
10. Accordingly the present writ petition is devoid of merits
and it stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
18-04-2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.3805 of 2017
To
The Tahsildar,
Coimbatore (North),
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.3805 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 3805 of 2017
18-04-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
