Madras High Court
Gandhi vs / on 21 October, 2024
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
W.P.(MD) No.24731 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.24731 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.21039 of 2024
Gandhi ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kalaiyarkoil Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
3.D.Pitchaimani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings
of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A4/4563/2024 dated 25.09.2024 passed by
the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24731 of 2024
For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.M.Rajarajan
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the first respondent in his
proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.A4/4563/2024 dated 25.09.2024.
2. The basis on which the above writ petition has been filed is as follows:-
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the punja land comprised in S.No.
155/6A measuring an extent of 2 cents at Kaya Odai Village, Kalaiyarkoil Taluk,
Sivagangai District, which is the subject matter of the above writ petition, had
been purchased by her mother, Karuppayee Ammal under a registered sale deed
dated 20.10.1966. The said property was part of a larger extent measuring 3.35
acres comprised in S.No.155/6. It is the case of the petitioner that her mother had
been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said lands and after her demise,
the petitioner's sister, Govindhammal, her brother, Pandi and herself had become
entitled to the property and were enjoying the same as absolute owners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.2. While so, one Govindammal, W/o.Karuppiah and her daughter,
Amsavalli started interfering with the possession of the property and had created
fraudulent sale deeds in favour of one Murugappan, who in turn had executed a
sale deed in favour of the third respondent. The said Govindammal,
W/o.Karuppiah, is none else than the wife of the petitioner's husband's brother.
Therefore, the petitioner and her siblings had filed a suit O.S.No.81 of 2015 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, for declaration and injunction.
2.3. By judgment and decree dated 04.12.2017, the said suit was dismissed.
Challenging the same, they had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.17 of 2018 on the
file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai and the learned Subordinate Judge by his
judgment and decree dated 28.06.2022 was pleased to allow the appeal and the
third respondent has challenged the same before this Court in S.A.(MD) No.607
of 2022, which is now pending. The petitioner would submit that the third
respondent had not obtained any interim orders in the said second appeal.
2.4. After the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, the petitioner and her
siblings had made an application to the second respondent for mutation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
patta and by order dated 08.01.2024, the patta was ordered to be mutated and sub-
division was also directed to be effected. Consequently, the second respondent by
order dated 23.01.2024 sub-divided the property as S.No.155/6A measuring an
extent of 2 acres and as S.No.155/6B measuring an extent of 1.35 acres and
entered the name of the petitioner in respect of S.No.155/6A and the name of the
third respondent in respect of S.No.155/6B.
2.5. Challenging the said order, the third respondent had preferred an
appeal before the first respondent, who had passed the impugned order cancelling
the order of mutation passed by the second respondent on the ground that the
second appeal is pending before this Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner
is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the civil
Court had passed the decree, the Revenue Authorities were bound by it and
cannot refuse to mutate the revenue records. He would submit that the appeal
filed by the petitioner had been allowed and therefore, the petitioner was armed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with the decree for declaration and injunction. In the light of the above, the
impugned order suffers from arbitrariness.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand would submit that once there is a dispute
with reference to title, the Revenue Authorities cannot effect the mutation of the
revenue records. In the instant case, the judgment and decree of the Subordinate
Court is subject to challenge and pending in the second appeal before this Court.
Therefore, the impugned order has been rightly passed.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and injunction
with reference to an extent of 3 cents (sic., 2 acres). The suit after contest had
been dismissed, thereby rejecting the petitioner's plea for declaration and
injunction with reference to the property in question. The appellate Court after
observing that the sale deed, under which the petitioner's mother had purchased
the property, describes the survey number as S.No.155/part had proceeded to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
presume that the property in question being a part of the larger extent of property
in one survey number when it was being sold, the same would be mentioned as
part. Further, when the petitioner's mother had purchased the property, it was
jointly owned by 12 individuals, who had a joint patta. On this premise, the
appeal appears to have been allowed. Challenging this judgment and decree, the
third respondent has filed the second appeal and the same is pending on the file of
this Court.
7. After the judgment and decree in the first appeal and the filing of the
second appeal, the petitioner has sought for mutation of the revenue records. The
second respondent in his order dated 08.01.2024 had stated that since no second
appeal had been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.17 of 2018, the
patta could be granted to the petitioner. The first respondent through the
impugned order has rightly held that since there was a dispute with reference to
the title, the order of the first respondent was erroneous and has rightly set aside
the order. Rule 4(4) of the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Rules, 1987, reads as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"4. (4) In the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a
dispute concerning ownership of patta is already pending in a Court
or issues are raised before him which impringe on personal laws or
laws of succession and all the parties interested do not agree on the
ownership in writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to obtain
order on the ownership from a competent Civil Court having
jurisdiction before changing the entries as already recorded and
existing in the various revenue records."
8. In the instant case, the parties are already before this Court in second
appeal and taking note of the fact that the first respondent has passed the order
only on the ground that there was no challenge to the judgment and decree in
A.S.No.17 of 2018, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and
consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. It is well open to the parties to
approach the Revenue Officials once the second appeal is disposed of and till
such time, no mutation or changes shall be effected by the Revenue Authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Speaking : Yes / No 21.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
mm
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kalaiyarkoil Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
