Madras High Court
A.Mandiramoorthy vs P.Eniya Bharathi on 13 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.993 and 1433 of 2021
W.A.(MD)No.296 of 2021:-
A.Mandiramoorthy ... Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Eniya Bharathi
2.The Sub Registrar,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 23.03.2020 made in
W.P.(MD)No.6617 of 2019 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : Mr.A.Sivaji for R1.
Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Addl. Government Pleader for R2.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
W.A.(MD)No.393 of 2021:-
A.Manthira Moorthi ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tuticorin.
2.The Assistant Director,
Geology and Mining,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Kovipatti,
Tuitcorin District.
4.P.Eniya Bharathi
5.P.Balakrishnan ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 23.03.2020 made in
W.P.(MD)No.24515 of 2019 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3.
Mr.A.Sivaji for R4.
Mr.K.Prabhu for R5.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The petition mentioned property stood in the name of the
Balakrishnan, the fifth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.24515 of 2019. He
entered into lease with one Eniyabharathi on 12.03.2014 for a period of
twenty years. Manthira Moorthy claimed that the property was sold in
his favour by Balakrishnan on 08.04.2015. Whileso, Eniyabharathi,
Balakrishnan and the District Collector, Tuticorin entered into a tripartite
agreement and license was given to Eniyabharathi to mine minor
minerals in the petition mentioned property. The said document had to
be registered. Manthira Moorthy raised objection on the ground that
since the property had been sold to him, the document cannot be
registered. Manthira Moorthy's request was negatived by District
Collector, Tuticorin vide communications dated 25.01.2019 and
20.02.2019. Since the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti declined to register the
document, Eniyabharathi filed W.P.(MD)No.6617 of 2019 for registering
the lease deed dated 15.02.2019. Likewise, Manthira Moorthy filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
W.P.(MD)No.24515 of 2019 questioning the stand of the District
Collector, Tuticorin. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a
common order dated 23.03.2020 in the following terms:-
“9. As per the above Section, the transfer is subject to all
the liabilities of the lessor of the property. In that view of the
matter, the second respondent is bound by the registered lease
agreement executed by his predecessor. It is pertinent to note
that the Encumbrance Certificate for a period between
01.03.2014 and 26.02.2019 clearly disclose that the lease
agreement executed in favour of the writ petitioner. Thereafter,
the subsequent transactions have been entered into. The second
respondent has purchased the property only in the year 2015.
Therefore, he cannot feign ignorance of the subsistence of the
lease nor binding nature of Section 109 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. Therefore, the contention of the learned
Senior Counsel for the second respondent that the lease deed
executed by the District Collector is not enforceable is not
legally sustainable. He can only demand the future premium,
that too, subject to the result of civil litigations with respect to
his title to the lands. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to
get the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, a direction is issued to
the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District to register the
lease deed dated 15.02.2019 executed by the District Collector,
Tuticorin and return the document to the petitioner forthwith.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
10. In the result, W.P.(MD) No.6617 of 2019 is allowed
and W.P.(MD)No.24515 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
Challenging the same, Manthira Moorthy filed these writ appeals.
3.When the writ appeals were was taken up for hearing, it was
submitted that Balakrishnan filed O.S.No.21 of 2016 on the file of the I
Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin questioning the sale deed
dated 08.04.2015 said to have been executed by him in favour of
Manthira Moorty. The suit was decreed on 02.07.2024. Aggrieved by
the same, Manthira Moorthy filed A.S.(MD)No.355 of 2024 before this
Court. Manthira Moorthy had not obtained interim order in his favour
till date. So long as Manthira Moorthy has not obtained any order in his
favour in respect of said sale deed in A.S.(MD)No.355 of 2024 pending
before this Court, he may not have any locus standi to maintain these
writ appeals. Based on the developments in A.S.(MD)No.355 of 2024,
Manthira Moorthy can approach this Court once again.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
4.The writ appeals are dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,)
13.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:
1.The District Collector,
Tuticorin.
2.The Assistant Director,
Geology and Mining,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Kovipatti,
Tuitcorin District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ias
W.A.(MD)Nos.296 and 393 of 2021
13.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
