Madras High Court
A.Kaliyaperumal vs The District Collector on 11 September, 2024
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
W.A.No.2647 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.2647 of 2024
A.Kaliyaperumal ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The Tahsildar,
Villupuram.
3.Kokilambal
4.Bagyalakshmi
5.Nandakumar
6.Ramkumar ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 29.06.2021 in W.P.No.14312 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2647 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.N.Suresh
For R1 and R2 : Mr.G.Krishna Raja
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 29.06.2021 in W.P.No.14312 of 2018.
2.The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the
writ petition in W.P.No.14312 of 2018 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the patta in favour of the
petitioner/appellant in respect of a property in S.No.260/1, Sendhanur
Village.
3.The appellant claims to be the absolute owner of the property in
S.No.260 measuring an extent of 1.28 Acres in Sendhanur Village. It is the
case of the appellant that he purchased the property from one Poorani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ammal by sale deed dated 21.09.1983. Though the appellant states that
patta for the property was given in respect of an extent of 42.50 Ares in
S.No.260/1, the appellant also admits that the names of private respondents
were also included in the patta. Alleging that no notice was issued to the
petitioner/appellant before mutation of Revenue records, the appellant
submitted a representation for removal of names of individuals and to restore
the patta in the name of appellant. The said representation was not
considered and hence, the appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.No.14312
of 2018. The writ petition was dismissed by recording a few facts which
were not disclosed by the petitioner/appellant.
4.It appears that the appellant’s vendor had purchased the property
from one Unnamalai Ammal, W/o.Kothandapani. The said Unnamalai
Ammal and appellant’s vendor, on the same day, entered into an agreement
of sale and as per the agreement, Unnamalai Ammal was entitled to re-
conveyance if she pays the money within the time stipulated in the said
agreement. Pursuant to the said agreement, the legal heirs of Unnamalai
Ammal filed a suit in O.S.No.1059 of 1989 before the District Munsif Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Villupuram, for specific performance as against the appellant’s vendor by
name Poorani Ammal as well as the appellant. The fact that the appellant
was a party to the suit for specific performance is not even disputed by the
appellant before this Court. The said suit was decreed. Subsequently, as per
the decree, defendants in the suit, including the appellant, were directed to
execute sale deed as per the decree. Since the Judgment Debtors including
the appellant did not execute the sale deed, a sale deed was executed
through Court in favour of the private respondents.
5.Therefore, title over the property has been recognised as per the
Civil Court’s decree. Subsequently, mutation had taken place in the Revenue
records in favour of the private respondents as per the Civil Court’s decree.
Though the appellant purchased the property, the appellant’s vendor had
earlier entered into an agreement and the decree in the suit for specific
performance filed by the private respondents against the appellant would
only show that the appellant had lost his title in the Civil forum. Therefore,
the appellant cannot be a person aggrieved by mutation of Revenue records
in tune with the Civil Court’s decree. The appellant himself is a party to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
civil proceedings. Hence, the appellant is estopped from claiming title over
the property.
6.Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is in
possession of the property. This Court is unable to agree with the said
submission, as this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the other side.
Though the sale deed was executed through Court, it is stated that no
Execution Petition is filed by the private respondents to take possession of
the property. This Court is unable to agree with the new plea. The
appellant who tried to get an order by suppressing material facts before this
Court in the writ petition and in this appeal cannot be permitted to raise new
plea. The nature of possession and the manner in which the property is
being enjoyed by the appellant, is neither pleaded nor shown by any of the
documents filed by the appellant. For obvious reasons, this Court is not
inclined to entertain this argument. Having regard to the facts submitted
before the learned Single Judge, this Court is unable to find any error or
irregularity in the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
mkn
7.Therefore, this Writ Appeal is dismissed for want of merits. No
costs.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
11.09.2024
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The Tahsildar,
Villupuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
