Madras High Court
S.Kuppusamy vs V.Raghuraman on 28 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
L.P.A.No.44 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
L.P.A.No.44 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.20897 of 2025
1.S.Kuppusamy
2.M.Muthupandi
3.Selvaraj ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.V.Raghuraman
Represented by Power Agent
A.Raja @ Rajaram
2.Savithiri
Inspector of Police,
Thalaivasal Police Station,
Salem District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thalaivasal Taluk, Salem District.
(suo motu impleaded as 2nd respondent
as per the order of this Court in Cont.P.No.756 of 2025
dated 28.03.2025) ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
L.P.A.No.44 of 2025
Prayer : Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order passed by this Court in Cont.P.No.756 of 2025, dated
24.04.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suryanarayanan
For R1 : Mr.M.Guruprasad
For R2 : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
For R3 : Mr.M.Murali
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the
learned Single Judge of this Court made in Cont.P.No.756 of 2025, dated
24.04.2025.
2.Originally, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6167 of
2024 before this Court for police protection to fence his property situated in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
R.S.No.40/2, 40/3, 40/4 and 40/5 in Pattuthurai Village, Attur Taluk, Salem
District. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 08.03.2024,
disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent Police to
conduct enquiry in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh
reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353.
3.Thereafter, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner initiated contempt
proceedings in Cont.P.No.756 of 2025 alleging willful disobedience of the
orders of the Court in the writ petition. The appellants are not parties to the
contempt proceedings. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated
24.04.2025, taking note of the fact that the property belonging to the writ
petitioner can be accessed from the northern side only through the pathway
that is available on the right side of the property belonging to the appellants
in S.No.39/5 and also the fact that the pathway available on the right side of
the property belonging to the appellants in S.No.39/5 is being used for
movement of big vehicles, held as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
“11.In view of the above, the respondents shall ensure
that if others are having access to the pathway that is
available on the right side of the property belonging to
Kuppusamy in Survey No.39/5, the petitioner alone cannot be
prevented. If that is prevented, it virtually amounts to
depriving the petitioner the fruits of the decree that has
become final. Hence, the respondents shall ensure that the
petitioner is permitted to have access like others and if any
law and order problem is created, action shall be initiated
against the concerned person in accordance with law.”
4.Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants, who are third parties,
have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.
5.According to the appellants, they are the neighbouring land owners
in S.No.39/5. According to them, the 1st respondent has no right to have
access through the pathway available in the property owned by the
appellants in S.No.39/5. In this regard, the appellants have already filed a
suit in O.S.No.220 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur,
and the same is pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7.As the appellants are not parties to the contempt proceedings, we
are of the view that an appeal cannot be maintained before this Court,
particularly when no positive direction has been passed as against the
appellants. The entire order impugned also indicates that the parties are
trying to establish their title over the property. According to the 1st
respondent, their rights have already been crystallized in O.S.No.366 of
1997 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Attur, and delivery has also been effected
through Court of Law. In such case, let the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge, continue. Now, the appellants, who are third parties, are
disputing the title and they have admittedly filed a suit in O.S.No.220 of
2022 before the Civil Court for declaration of title and mandatory
injunction. In such view of the matter, let the rights be agitated in the
pending suit before the Civil Court. We find that the third party appellants,
at this stage, cannot assail the order of the learned Single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
8.Accordingly, this Letter Patents Appeal is disposed of with a
direction that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall continue.
The learned District Munsif, Attur, is directed to dispose of the suit in
O.S.No.220 of 2022 independently on its own merits, without being
influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
28.10.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Nonspeaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The District Munsif,
Attur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thalaivasal Police Station,
Salem District.
3.The Tahsildar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
Thalaivasal Taluk,
Salem District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
mkn
28.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
