Madras High Court
R.U.Krishnaraj vs The District Revenue ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.P(MD)No. 18999 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :22.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P(MD)No. 18999 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.16046 of 2024
R.U.Krishnaraj ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Additional District
Judicial administrator,
Theni District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
3. The Thasildar,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
4. R.Gopal
5. Raj @ Karuppan Chettiar
6. Balu @ Kalathinathan
7. TKS.Manokaran
8. S.D.Gopinath
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
W.P(MD)No. 18999 of 2024
9. G.Vimala
10. Nanthini
11. Meenakumari
12. TKSM.Ratchaka
13. TKSM.Udayakumar
14. Nagadevi
15. TKSM.Sathishkumar
(R9 to R15 are impleaded vide Court
order dated 12.11.2024 in W.M.P.(MD)18158 of 2024
in W.P.(MD) No.18999 of 2024) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent
in Na.Ka.No.36617/2024/D4 dated 02.07.2024 quash the same and
consequently, direct the first respondent herein and restore the patta in
the name of grandfather of petitioner P.N.V.Ramasamy Gowder, in
respect of Survey Nos.197/1, 199, 200/1, K.Pudupatti village,
Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan
Senior Counsel
for Mr. V.S. Kumara Guru
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai
for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R4 to R15
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
W.P(MD)No. 18999 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner traces title over lands in survey Nos.197/1, 199 and
200/1 ad measuring about 3.22 acres from his late grandfather, P.N.V.
Ramaswamy Gounder. The private respondents herein, or their
predecessors, had filed O.S.No.240 of 2011 before the District Munsif
Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants therein
from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. Such suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated
08.03.2018, which was subsequently affirmed by judgment and decree
dated 15.12.2023 in A.S.No.21 of 2018. The petitioner's father and
brother had filed W.P.(MD) No.17900 of 2018 seeking a grant of separate
patta. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated
15.07.2019 directing the petitioners therein to approach the competent
civil court. The petitioner's father and brother thereafter filed O.S.No.104
of 2021 seeking a declaration of title. The said suit was dismissed for
non-prosecution and has not been restored as on date.
2. Meanwhile, the petitioner requested for mutation of the patta in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
his name. The revision petition relating thereto was considered and
rejected by the District Revenue Officer by order dated 02.07.2024,
which is impugned herein.
3. The contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
may be summarised as follows:
(i) The conclusion of the District Revenue Officer that the petitioner
should approach the jurisdictional civil court is unsustainable
because the petitioner's title through his grandfather was decided
in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated
08.03.2018 in O.S.No.240 of 2011. The title of the petitioner's
grandfather was further affirmed by judgment and decree in
A.S.No.21 of 2018.
(ii)Because the title of the petitioner had been previously decided, any
subsequent suit relating to title would be barred by res judicata. In
support of the proposition that title may be decided even in a suit
for injunction, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sulochanamma vs. Narayan Nair reported in (1994) 2 SCC 14,
particularly paragraph 9 thereof, and the judgment in Annaimuthu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
Thevar (dead) by legal representatives vs. Alagammal and others
reported in (2005) 6 SCC 202, particularly paragraphs Nos.30 to
34 were relied upon.
(iii)As regards the order dated 15.07.2019 in W.P.(MD) No. 17990 of
2018, the said order was issued without noticing that title had been
decided in the above mentioned original suit. In fact, the judgment
and decree of the first appeal was subsequent to the order in the
Writ Petition.
(iv)The private respondents rely on an unregistered partnership deed
and have not cited any other documents to establish their title.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted as follows in
reply:
(i) The petitioner's father had filed W.P.(MD) No.21110 of 2017
seeking a survey of the lands forming subject of this Writ Petition
and withdrew the said Writ Petition.
(ii)The petitioner has repeatedly requested for mutation of patta
without obtaining a declaration of title from the civil court.
Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
5. The contentions of learned counsel for respondents 4 to 15 may
be summarised as under:
(i) The petitioner's grandfather acknowledged and recognised that the
property belongs to the partnership firm. This is clear from the sale
deed dated 14.05.1979 in favour of Kalathiinathan, which was
attested by the petitioner's grandfather.
(ii) In the family partition deed, the petitioner's grandfather referred to
the 1/7 share in the property, thereby, acknowledging that it was
the property of the partnership firm.
(iii)The petitioner cannot resile from the position that title had not
been declared by a competent civil court after having filed a civil
suit for declaration, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The
only recourse available to the petitioner in this situation is to take
necessary steps to restore the said suit.
6. On the basis of the rival contentions, the question that arises for
consideration is whether interference is warranted with the conclusion of
the District Revenue Officer that the petitioner should approach the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
competent civil court. On perusal of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.
240 of 2011, it is evident that the said suit was filed for the relief of
permanent injunction. It is also evident that the suit was dismissed on the
ground that the partnership was unregistered. As contended by learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner, upon considering the evidence
recorded in the said suit, there are observations with regard to title.
Subsequent to the judgment and decree in the suit, the petitioner had
filed W.P.(MD) No.17990 of 2018 before this Court. The said Writ
Petition was disposed of by refusing to issue any directions for the grant
of separate patta after observing that title to the relevant property had not
been decided and that it is open to the petitioners therein to approach the
jurisdictional civil court to establish title. The admitted position is that
this order was not challenged by the petitioner herein or by the father and
brother of the petitioner.
7. As noticed earlier, learned Senior Counsel had relied on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sulochana Amma (cited
supra) and Annaimuthu Thevar (cited supra) to contend that title may be
decided in a suit for injunction. On perusal of paragraph 9 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
judgment in Sulochana Amma (cited supra), it follows that if title was
directly and substantially in issue, even if decided in a suit for injunction,
it would operate as res judicata. Whether the observations in the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.240 of 2011 were made in a suit where
title was directly and substantially in issue is contentious. In this case, by
an order subsequent to the judgment and decree, this Court concluded
that title is required to be decided in a suit for declaration and the said
order has not been challenged till date. Learned counsel for the private
respondents has also placed on record documents indicating that the
property was recognised by the petitioner's grandfather as the property of
the partnership firm. In these proceedings, it is neither necessary nor
appropriate to record any findings in relation to title. Nonetheless,
sufficient doubt has been raised justifying reference to a competent civil
court.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned
order directing the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil court. It
is needless to say that it will be open to the petitioner to contend in such
civil suit that res judicata or issue estoppel operates in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
petitioner by virtue of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.240 of 2011
and judgment and decree in A.S.No.21 of 2018. It will equally be open to
the private respondents to refute such contention.
9. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of
without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
NCS : Yes/No 22.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
apd
To
1. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Additional District
Judicial administrator,
Theni District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
3. The Thasildar,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J.
apd
ORDER MADE IN
22.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 07:51:17 pm )
