Madras High Court
M.Ganesan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2024
Author: G. Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.P.No.23318 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :30.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.P.No.23318 of 2024
M.Ganesan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Harur Sub Division,
Dharmapuri District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Harur Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
4. M.Krishnamoorthy ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to
take action by preventing the fourth respondent from causing any
disturbance to the petitioner in compliance with the judgment and decree
dated 15.02.2021 made in O.S.No.104 of 2016 on the file of the
Ld.District Munsif Court, Harur as held in 2014 (2) CTC 695 by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.23318 of 2024
considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.07.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for RR1 to 3
Mr.R.Asokan, for R4
********
ORDER
The petitioner herein being fortified with the Court decree passed
in OS No.104 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur,
seeks protection of piece of land declared in his favour and to prevent the
fourth respondent from causing any disturbance to the petitioner’s
property.
2. The case of the petitioner is that based on a Partition Deed in the
year 1985, the ancestral properties were divided among the brothers. The
petitioner was allotted 5.85 acres of land in S.F.No.16/2B and 25 cents in
S.F.No.16/2A to the fourth respondent. In the suit, the fourth respondent
claimed the right to an extent of 27 cents, however, on analyzing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
documents, the fourth respondent was declared ownership to the extent of
25 cents in the given Survey number.
3. The issue is regarding the cart track which finds place in the
schedule of property annexed to the plaint. The said extent of land is
now claimed grant ownership by the fourth respondent, whereas the
petitioner claims that it is exclusive property and referred to the decree
wherein the right has been asserted including the cart track. The
schedule of properties described in the Partition Deed as well as in the
plaint were read over to this Court by the respective counsels to
emphasize the point regarding the ownership of the cart track, described
in the decree. Normally, if it is a common cart track usable for joint
owners, it will be specifically mentioned in the document. In this case,
the Partition Deed speaks about the pathway while describing the
property allotted to the petitioner herein. Insofar as the property allotted
to the fourth respondent, the pathway leading from the Theerthamalai
Main Road to the Vaniyar River and for access to the graveyard is
mentioned.
4. This issue has been discussed by the Trial Court and taking note
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of UDR measurements, the right of the fourth respondent is restricted to
25 cents and nothing more. In the said circumstances, the petitioner
herein has right to seek protection for his land as per the Court Decree.
5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, the respondent Police is
directed to provide protection, if any need for the petitioner arises for
protecting his property as per the Civil Court Decree. There shall be no
order as to costs.
30.09.2024
jv
Internet: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
speaking order/ Non Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Harur Sub Division,
Dharmapuri District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Harur Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
jv
30.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
