R. Mahadevan, J.

1. Seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent in See. Ma. Ka. No. 7692/2010 D3 dated 14.10.2014, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is as follows:

2.1. According to the petitioner, he purchased the following properties measuring the total extent of 8.89.5 hectares, during 1986-1987 in the name of his mother, namely, Rajammal:

The patta was also transferred in the name of his mother and she died on 17.07.1994 and thereafter, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. Meanwhile, the second respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner's sister, had managed to get a Will executed by the father of the petitioner as though it had been executed by the deceased mother of the petitioner in favour of the second respondent in the year 2004, in order to secure the collateral security for his contract works in Singapore. It is further stated that though the alleged Will was executed by the father of the petitioner and he put his signature therein, his mother, namely, deceased Rajammal did not put her signature in the said Will. Thereafter, the second respondent got transfer of patta in his name without notice to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, who cancelled the patta issued in favour of the second respondent and found that the alleged Will was a forged one.

2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner sold 14 acres in the above said properties to one Vinoth Kumar by a registered sale deed, dated 17.02.2010. In the meantime, the second respondent and his son-in-law entered into a collusive sale agreement and filed a suit in O.S. No. 100 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai and obtained a decree. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S. No. 214 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranoor, seeking declaration and injunction and it is pending.

2.3. Pendente lite, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 14.10.2014, transferring the patta in favour of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Though the matter has been admitted by this Court on 02.12.2014, the first respondent has not filed any counter affidavit so far.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is inter alia, stated thus:

4.1. The second respondent had purchased the said properties in the name of his mother-in-law, namely, deceased Rajammal, who was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties and patta was also issued in her name.

4.2. The said Rajammal executed a Will dated 18.01.1993 bequeathing the properties in favour of the second respondent and she died on 17.07.1994.

4.3. After her death, the properties were devolved on the second respondent and he approached the Tahsildar, Kulathur, seeking patta and accordingly, the patta was transferred in his name, by proceedings dated 14.10.2004.

4.4. However, on the appeal filed by the father of the petitioner/father-in-law of the second respondent, the same was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, by proceedings dated 05.02.2010 and it was restored in the name of the deceased Rajammal.

4.5. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed a revision before the first respondent and it is still pending.

4.6. Pendency of the said revision, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 214 of 201