[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
P. Velu vs Murugadass on 7 January, 2026
W.A.No.3782 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.01.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.3782 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.31265 of 2025
P. Velu
S/o.Pandurangan,
Thagadi Village and Post,
Tirukoilur Tlauk,
Kallakurichi District.
Appellant
Vs
1.Murugadass
S/o.Velu,
Thagadi Village and Post,
Tirukoilur Taluk,
Kallakurichi District.
2.The District Collector
Kallakurichi District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Kallakurichi District.
Respondents
______________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 02:02:47 pm )
W.A.No.3782 of 2025
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31732 of 2024,
dated 09.12.2024.
For Appellant: Mrs.R.Poornima
For Respondents: Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar
State Government Pleader
assisted by
Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman
Government Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 and 3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant [father] on the
ground that on the date when the order was passed by the writ
court, he had already executed another settlement deed in favour of
his second son.
2. On the basis of the undertaking given by the writ
petitioner/first respondent herein [first son of the appellant] that he
will pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the appellant, the learned Single
Judge set aside the order of the Collector and the settlement
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 02:02:47 pm )
arrived at between the appellant and the grandsons [children of first
respondent herein] was revived.
3. Even though it was within the personal knowledge of the
appellant that he had executed second settlement deed in favour of
his second son on 19.11.2024, this fact was conveniently
suppressed when the case was heard by the learned Single Judge
on 9.12.2024.
4. There is no reason why the principle of lis pendens should
not be applied in the present case. The second settlement deed
was executed when the order of the Collector was pending
challenge before this court. Obviously, had this fact been brought
to the notice of the learned Single Judge, a consequential order
would have been passed.
5. We modify the order of the learned Single Judge only to the
extent that the effect of the order of the learned Single Judge would
be revival of the first settlement deed between the appellant and
the grandsons [children of first respondent herein] and the second
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 02:02:47 pm )
settlement between the appellant and the second son would lose its
efficacy in law. Barring the said modification, no other interference
is warranted.
6. It is made clear that the first respondent [first son] shall
continue to pay Rs.3,000/- per month and if there is any failure, the
appellant would be at liberty to approach this court seeking
appropriate action against violation of the order.
Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
07.01.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 02:02:47 pm )
To:
1.The District Collector
Kallakurichi District
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Kallakurichi District.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 02:02:47 pm )
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
07.01.2026
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 02:02:47 pm )
