Madras High Court
Chelliah vs The Tahsildar on 27 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.17435 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.17435 of 2023
Chelliah : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankoil Taluk,
Tenkasi District.
2.Lakshmanan : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent
to transfer the patta in the name of the petitioner, as per his
application in 2023/0154/34/001583, considering his bonafide
purchase, possession and enjoyment of the property, being 25 cents
of land situated on the northern side of 50 cents of land, forming part
of 2 Acres and 8 cents in the southern side of the larger extent of
land admeasuring 4 acres and 16 cents in S.No.255/3C present S.No.
76/22 (T.S.No.76/27 of Sankarankoil Municipality) in Patta No.78,
Sankarankoil Kaspa, Bharathiyar third Street, Tenkasi District within
a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.17435 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Prakash
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.F.X.Eugene
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, seeking
issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to
transfer patta in the name of the petitioner as per his application in
2023/0154/34/001583.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's vendor has
entered into an agreement of sale from the sons of the original owner
one Ganapathi Chettiyar and since the agreement was not honoured,
the petitioner's vendor approached the Civil Court for specific
performance of the agreement of sale in O.S.No.91 of 2008. The said
suit came to be decreed on 28.08.2009, though exparte. The
petitioner having succeeded in the suit, filed execution petition in
E.P.No.29 of 2012 and on the failure of the defendant / judgment
debtor to comply with the decree, the executing court executed and
registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner's vendor.
Thereafter, the petitioner's vendor mutated the patta in his name.
Thereafter, the petitioner has purchased the subject property from
the said vendor, who was the successful decree holder, in the court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 12:10:42 pm )
proceedings arising out of a suit for specific performance. When the
petitioner approached for transfer of patta in his name, the first
respondent has expressed his inability citing pendency of the suit in
O.S.No.39 of 2019. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this
Court seeking issuance of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to
issue transfer orders relating to the patta standing in the name of the
petitioner's vendor.
3.However, learned Counsel for the second respondent would
submit that the original owner Ganapathi Chettiyar, even during his
life time has sold the subject property to the second respondent's
grandfather Subramania Muthaliar, in and by registered sale deed
dated 13.09.1969, even before the alleged sale by the legal heirs.
Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that as on the date of
entering into the agreement of sale with the petitioner's vendor, the
sons of Ganapathi Chettiyar had no subsisting interest in the
property. Therefore, he would submit that even assuming the Court
has executed the decree in favour of the petitioner's vendor, the
same would not convey valid title. Only in this regard, learned
Counsel would submit that a suit has been filed to declare the sale
deed of the petitioner's vendor as null and void. The said suit is
admittedly pending and the writ petitioner is not a party to the said
suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 12:10:42 pm )
4.Admittedly, till such time the second respondent succeeds
before the Civil Court, getting a declaration that the sale deed in
favour of the petitioner's vendor namely defendant in O.S.No.39 of
2019 is null and void, the said sale deed is valid and continues to
have legal force. Moreover, the petitioner's vendor has been issued
patta, which has not been challenged till date. Therefore, no
prejudice would be caused, if the first respondent is directed to
effect mutation of patta in the names of the petitioner as well as
second respondent and issue a joint patta in respect of the subject
property, subject to the outcome of the suit in O.SNo.39 of 2019.
Necessary amendments and modifications shall be made in the patta
thereafter.
5.Considering that the suit has been pending from 2019, this
Court is directs the Sub-Court, Sankarankoil, to dispose of the said
suit in O.S.No.39 of 2019, within a period of six [6] months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.Registry is directed to mark a copy to Sub-Court,
Sankarankoil. It is also open to the petitioner to seek impleadment as
party defendant in the suit, since as on date, the petitioner is
claiming right over the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 12:10:42 pm )
7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
27.03.2025
Index :Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 12:10:42 pm )
To
1.The Sub-Court,
Sankarankoil.
2.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankoil Taluk,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 12:10:42 pm )
P.B.BALAJI., J.
MR
27.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 12:10:42 pm )
