Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3986
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
K. Ravichandran - Appellant
Vs.
The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.12492 of 2015, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 and WMP(MD) No.6053 of 2016
Decided On : 24-06-2016
For the Appellant : V. Sitharanjandas.
For the Respondents: S. Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Limitation Act – Article 61, Section 27 – Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 – Section 12 – Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Rules, 1987 – Rule 4 – Call for Records – Petitioner has filed the present writ petition prayed for calling for the records pertaining to the order, passed by the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, in confirming the order of the Second Respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District – Held, One cannot brush aside an important fact that there are serious disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondents 4 to 7 touching upon the subject matter of the properties in question and as per Rule 4(4) of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Rules, 1987, when the parties interested do not agree on the ownership, then, the Tahsildar shall direct the concerned parties to obtain a Ruling on the ownership from the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction before changing the entries as already recorded and existing in the Revenue records. – Court, taking note of the entire conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in an encircling fashion, not expressing any opinion on the merits of the subject matter in issue and not displacing the order of the First Respondent, simpliciter, directs the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, to file a necessary suit for seeking declaration of ownership or for redemption of the Usufructuary mortgage or for such other reliefs as they deem fit and proper, before the competent Civil Court, in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law, if they so desire/advised, with a view to resolve the controversies between the parties, in a complete and comprehensive manner and to give quietus. – Writ Petition Disposed of.
M. Venugopal, J.
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner; the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition prayed for calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 09.07.2015 passed by the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, in confirming the order of the Second Respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, dated 18.06.2014.
3. The Writ Facts:-
3.1 According to the Petitioner, one Sundaramoorthia Pillai and his brother Veluchamy owned the properties in Mela Mudukulathoor Group, Mudukulathoor Taluk, Ramanathapuram District to an extent of (a) 0.55.0 Hectares in S. No. 282/4; (b) 0.40.5 Hectares in S. No. 282/6; (c) 0.69.5 Hectares in S. No. 283/3 and (d) 0.49.0 Hectares in S. No. 270/1. They mortgaged the said properties in favour of Kadar Mohideen on 06.06.1968 for Rs. 4,600/- by executing a registered Othi Deed. Later, they created Mel Othi in favour of Kadar Mohideen on 05.06.1974 for Rs. 5,000/- and registered the same.
3.2 It comes to be known that the said Kadar Mohideen made over the said mortgage in favour of Karuppana Thevar (father of the Petitioner) for Rs. 9,600/- by executing a registered deed on 19.05.1986 and handed over the possession in his favour. The Petitioner's father was in possession of the said properties from the said date onwards. The original owners had to redeem the mortgage, within a period of three years as per the deed. But they failed to do so and the limitation for redeeming the mortgage is 30 years. In spite of expiry of more than 30 years, they failed to redeem the mortgage and hence, they lost their right in redeeming the mortgage and the mortgagees became the absolute owners.
3.3 After the demise of Karuppana Thevar, his sons viz., the Petitioner, Moorthy, Mohan and Bhuvanendran inherited the said properties as legal heirs and they were in joint enjoyment of the same and were issued with patta bearing No.2108. Later, on 15.12.2011, the Petitioner and his brothers Moorthy and Bhuvanendran executed a Tnam settlement' in his favour by releasing 3/5 of their shares. Further, on 16.06.2012, his another brother executed 'Inam settlement' by releasing 1/3 of his share in favour of the Petitioner and by means of the said Inam settlement, the Petitioner became the absolute owner of the aforesaid properties and only he is in possession of the properties by paying kists and other taxes. Moreover, the Petitioner is issued with patta bearing No. 2648 by the Third Respondent on 21.10.2012 and the Village Administrative Officer of Mela Mudukulathoor Group had issued a certificate to that effect.
3.4 When that be the position, the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, approached the Second Respondent by preferring an Appeal against the issuance of patta in favour of the Petitioner by mentioning that they are the sons of Sundaramoothy, who was one of the owners and they made arrangements to redeem the mortgage from the legal heirs of original deceased mortgagee Karuppana Thevar. But they were delaying the issue by stating one or other reasons.
3.5 The Second Respondent on an erroneous view allowed the Appeal on 18.06.2014 on the sole ground that the Petitioner's father became owner of the properties only by way of mortgage deed and cancelled joint patta No. 2108, which was issued to him along with his brothers and also the patta No. 2648 standing in his name. Being dissatisfied with the order, dated 18.06.2014, passed in the appeal by the Second Respondent, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, and that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 made their appearance through the Learned Counsel and on 09.07.2015, the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, passed a
