Madras High Court
K.C.Gurusamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 18 August, 2023
W.P(MD)No.1781 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.1781 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
K.C.Gurusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Collectorate,
Madurai-625 020.
2.The Tahsildar,
Madurai North Taluk,
Madurai-625 020.
3.R.Subatharai Ammal ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
the entire proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1820/2012/N dated 19.1.2015, on the file of
the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arjunvarma
for M/s.Lajapathi Roy & Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2
: no appearance for R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.P(MD)No.1781 of 2015
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for R1 & R2. Though the third
respondent has entered appearance through counsel, there is no representation
on her behalf.
2. The third respondent applied to the Revenue Divisional officer,
Madurai and sought issuance of patta in her name in respect of the petition
mentioned property. Patta stood in the name of the petitioner in his capacity as
managing trustee of the trust. The case of the third respondent was accepted
and the impugned order dated 19.01.2015 was passed in her favour.
Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the
property belonged to one Pandian and the said Pandian had executed a Will
dated 17.06.2001 in favour of the petitioner. The third respondent on the other
hand claimed title on the strength of the sale deed bearing Document No.
8401/2010 said to have been executed by the legal heirs of the said Pandian.
The petitioner thereupon filed O.S.No.256 of 2011 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, against the third respondent and others
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1781 of 2015
impeaching the very validity of the said sale deed dated 15.07.2010.
An exparte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 22.11.2013. It was
set aside and the suit was decreed as prayed for 23.12.2021 after full contest.
The third respondent has filed an appeal. But no interim order has been granted
in her favour as on date. In the mean while, the third respondent filed W.P.
(MD)No.1895 of 2020 before this Court for effecting mutation of patta in her
favour. The petitioner herein figured as fourth respondent. After hearing both
sides, the writ petition was dismissed on 19.06.2023. Paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of
the said order read as follows:-
“3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, who was
subsequently impleaded, produced the judgment in O.S.No.256 of 2011 which
was the suit filed by the fourth respondent and his son as trustee of Milaka
V.Pandian Charitable Trust. The suit was filed for declaration that the suit
property belongs to the Trust and to declare the sale deed executed in favour of
the petitioner herein as null and void and not binding on the fourth respondent
and other plaintiff therein and for consequential injunction restraining their
possession being disturbed. By judgment dated 23.12.2021, the learned District
Munsif, Madurai, was pleased to decreed the suit as prayed for. There has been
no challenge to this decree.
4. In the light of the above, the petitioner, whose sale deed has been
declared as null and void, cannot seek a mandamus to change the patta in her
name. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1781 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
4. In the light of the foregoing reasons, one can safely conclude that the
position that prevails as on date is that the writ petitioner's title has been
recognised, whereas the third respondent's claim has been negatived. Only if
the third respondent succeeds in the appeal said to have been filed by her, the
issue can be revisited. The order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. I
make it clear that the rights of the parties will abide by the outcome of the first
appeal. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Collectorate,
Madurai-625 020.
2.The Tahsildar,
Madurai North Taluk,
Madurai-625 020.
W.P(MD)No.1781 of 2015
18.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
