Madras High Court
M.Mani vs The Thasildhar on 21 April, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.8020 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD)No.8020 of 2020
M.Mani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Thasildhar,
Tirumangalam,
Madurai District.
2.Virumayee @ Poornam
3.Nagammal
4.Manjana Petchi
5.Samuthiram ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct an
enquiry and pass orders within a time frame for mutation of patta on the
basis of the petitioner representation dated 20.03.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj,
Special Government Pleader for R1
Mr.P.Rajagopalan for R2
Mr.R.Ramasamy for R3 to R5
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8020 of 2020
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed for a mandamus to the first
respondent to conduct an enquiry and pass orders within a time frame
and mutate the patta in the petitioner's name considering his
representation dated 20.03.2022.
2. The facts are briefly set out herein below.
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that one Muthuviruma Thevar is
the father of the petitioner, respondents 2 to 5 and one Pandiammal. The
properties comprised in S.Nos.186/1B, 192/4B, 195/6B measuring an
extent of 0.11.0 acres, 0.08.0 ares and 0.01.05 ares respectively are the
ancestral properties of his father. It is the petitioner's case that these
properties were purchased by his father from and out of the income from
the ancestral properties. The petitioner has purchased an extent of 0.09.0
ares in S.No.193/2K1 and that apart he had acquired title to the property
measuring 0.13.5 ares in S.No.193/L. It is his case that in the year 1970
there was an oral partition in the family. The respondents 2 and 3 were
married even before the oral partition. The respondents 4 and 5 were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8020 of 2020
minors at that time. The petitioner's father, for himself and acting as the
guardian of the minor respondents 4 and 5 had relinquished the shares of
the respondents 4 and 5. This fact was also known to the petitioner's
sister Pandiammal. That being the case, the patta in respect of the
properties stood in the name of the petitioner.
2.2. While so, the respondents 2 to 5 had filed a suit for partition in
O.S.No.314 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Tirumangalam. Pending the partition suit, the respondents 2 to 5 had
presented an application for mutation of the revenue records by including
their names in the patta before the first respondent. Thereafter, they had
started interfering with the petitioner's possession. Therefore, the
petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.502 of 2010 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Tirumangalam seeking the relief of permanent
injunction. The first respondent ignoring the fact that a suit for partition
is pending, continued with the mutation of the patta by including the
names of the respondents 2 to 5. Meanwhile, the respondents 2 to 5
allowed the suit in O.S.No.314 of 2006 to be dismissed for default by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8020 of 2020
Judgment and Decree dated 12.12.2019. No steps have been taken by
them to restore the suit to file. Since the suit for partition has been
dismissed, the petitioner has made a representation dated 20.03.2020 to
the first respondent calling upon him to restore the patta to its original
state by removing the names of the respondents 2 to 5. Since the
representation is yet to be considered, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsels on either side.
4. From the records, it appears that, originally patta was granted in
the name of the petitioner, which appears to have been unilaterally
changed by the first respondent by including the names of the
respondents 2 to 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the properties
belong to him and he is in exclusive possession of the same. The suit
filed for partition has already been dismissed for default as early as in the
year 2019, which admittedly has not been restored to file.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8020 of 2020
5. In these circumstances, there is no impediment to the first
respondent to revert the patta to its original state after removing the
names of the respondents 2 to 5. The writ petition is therefore allowed
and direction is issued to the first respondent to remove the names of the
respondents 2 to 5 and restore the patta in the name of the petitioner
alone as it originally stood within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that if there is any
objection to the same, the first respondent shall consider such objections
before effecting the mutation. It is also made clear that the direction to
mutate the patta is subject to any further proceedings being initiated for
reviving the suit by the respondents 2 to 5. No costs.
21.04.2023
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mbi
To
The Thasildhar,
Tirumangalam,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8020 of 2020
P.T.ASHA, J.
mbi
W.P.(MD)No.8020 of 2020
21.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
