Madras High Court
A.Murugesan vs K.Paramasiva Mudaliar on 24 November, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD)No.1854 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD)No.1854 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.14175 of 2023
A.Murugesan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.K.Paramasiva Mudaliar
2.N.Mani
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside
the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.1818 of 2015, dated 24.08.2023 on the file of
this Court.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1854 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.F.X.Eugene
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Karunanithi
For R3 to R5 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)
The property, which is subject matter of the Writ Appeal, originally
belonged to three brothers, namely, Arumuga Mudaliar, Narayana Mudaliar and
Paramasiva Mudaliar. Narayana Mudailiar is the father of the 2nd writ petitioner.
Paramasiva Mudaliar and Arumuga Mudaliar are still alive and Murugesan / 4th
respondent in the Writ Petition is the legal representative of Arumuga Mudaliar.
2.On the date of death of Arumuga Mudaliar, patta was mutated
exclusively in the name of Murugesan, S/o.Arumuga Mudaliar. Prior to such
mutation the parties alleged that they were not put on notice.
3.The learned Single Judge directed the restoration of the revenue
records in the name of Paramasiva Mudaliar, Murugesan as well as N.Mani
S/o.Narayana Mudaliar. In other words, he restored status-quo ante prior to the
separate mutation in favour of Arumuga Mudaliar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
contend that there has already been a partition in the family and therefore, it is in
the revenue records only reflect partition that had already taken place and the
learned Single Judge erred in passing the order in restoring the position, which
exist prior to the revenue records issued in the name of the 4th respondent in the
Writ Petition.
5.This is stoutly objected by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners /
the respondents 1 & 2 before us. He would plea that the respondents 1 & 2 are
also entitled to have a right over the property.
6.The issues as to whether there has been a partition in the family and
this property has been allotted to the 4th respondent / appellant are the matter,
which are alien to the Writ proceedings. Therefore, the parties have to workout
their remedy before the jurisdictional civil Court either for partition or for
declaration of title. The revenue records do not confer any right over any person
and mere fact that the revenue record stands in the name of the writ petitioner or
the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition is not giving any benefit to them, when they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
are before the civil Court. In the event a Suit is presented, the civil Court shall
decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations made in the Writ Petition.
7.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) & (V.L.N., J.)
24.11.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Yuva
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
