Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 801

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, J.
PAKT Educational Trust, Rep. by its Trustee PR. Sathiyamoorthy, Trichy – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition (MD) No. 6816 of 2020 & WMP (MD) No. 6216 of 2020
Decided On : 24-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel, D. Stanislaus, Advocate.
For the Respondents:H. Arumugam, Advocate.

Point of law: the parties to approach the civil forum and when the matters are pending before the civil forum, without narrating the entire happenings, it is not appropriate on the part of the official respondents interfering into the civil dispute

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Trespass – Erection of Stones in Property – Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering into the civil dispute between the petitioner and 8th respondent herein which is pending in O.S. on the file of Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, by aiding the 8th respondent and his men to trespass into the property in dispute, by measuring and erecting stones in the property with complete disregard to the pendency of the suit before the competent civil court – Prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering into the civil dispute between the petitioner and 8th respondent herein which is pending in O.S. on the file of the Mahila Court, by aiding the 8th respondent and his men to trespass into the property in dispute, by measuring and erecting stones in the property with complete disregard to the pendency of the suit before the competent civil court
Finding of court: Perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, counter affidavit of the 8th respondent and the rejoinder affidavit filed thereto, shows that various suits are pending between the parties and there are allegations and counter allegations raised by the parties and all that can be gone into only by the civil forum and that is the reason why the Revenue Divisional Officer based on the orders passed by this Court in W.A(MD), has directed the parties to approach the civil forum and when the matters are pending before the civil forum, without narrating the entire happenings, it is not appropriate on the part of the official respondents interfering into the civil dispute. – Judge while passing the order in Crl.O.P(MD) was not apprised of the order passed in the writ appeal and the case is pending before the civil form. – Revenue Divisional Officer has directed the parties to resolve the issue before the civil forum after enquiry based on the remand in the writ appeal. – Against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the writ petition is pending before this Court in W.P(MD) – It is only the civil forum which can decide the issue in hand and therefore, the respondents/police are directed not to interfere into the civil dispute.
Result: Writ Petition Allowed

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering into the civil dispute between the petitioner and 8th respondent herein which is pending in O.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, by aiding the 8th respondent and his men to trespass into the property in dispute, by measuring and erecting stones in the property with complete disregard to the pendency of the suit before the competent civil court.)

1. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering into the civil dispute between the petitioner and 8th respondent herein which is pending in O.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, by aiding the 8th respondent and his men to trespass into the property in dispute, by measuring and erecting stones in the property with complete disregard to the pendency of the suit before the competent civil court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the properties in Re.Survey Nos.8/1, No.8/2 and Survey No.8/4 of K.Abhishekapuram Village, Trichirappalli Taluk, Trichirappalli District and many other properties which are not in dispute, were the joint family properties consisting of Natesan, Alagan and Chinnaiyan who are all sons of one Kathirvel Moopan and their respective wives and children. The said properties were purchased in the names of joint family members from and out of joint family funds. According to the petitioner, as there were difficulties in enjoying the family properties jointly, the abovesaid persons entered into a family arrangement, by which, shares were allotted to the members as per their respective enjoyment of lands. He would further state that the legal heirs of Natesan, Alagan and brother of Natesan and Alagan viz., Chinnaiyan, Chinnaiyan's children viz., Raj and Kulumayee reduced the said family arrangement into a deed of partition dated 25.05.1998 for the record purpose in the presence of mediators. Even some of the legal heirs who were given share in the properties under the said partition deed, alienated the same to third parties including the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, the properties in dispute were the shares allotted to the said Natesan's branch and after his demise, all the 5 legal heirs each became entitled to equal shares in the properties. The petitioner would state that by his individual capacity and Trustee of PAKT Educational Trust and one M.Venkatachalam through various sale deeds and conveyances, got entitled to 4/5th share in the properties comprised in S.Nos.8/1, 8/2 and 8/4 of K.Abhishekapuram Village.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the above properties for valuable consideration and on the date of purchase, the properties were free from all encumbrances and the revenue records were also mutated by including the name of the petitioner in respect of the said properties. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know about the fraudulent sale made by one Gandhi in respect of the above properties in the year 2006 to third parties and further alienations made in favour of one Sivakumar, 8th respondent herein. The petitioner also came to know about the cancellation of patta issued in favour of his vendor and false representations made by the said Sivakumar to the concerned authorities to cancel the name of the petitioner from the joint patta. The said cancellation was also set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.322/2014 dated 23.03.2017 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Therefore, feeling that it is no longer advisable to keep the said properties in the joint enjoyment, the petitioner as trustee of PAKT Educational Trust along with S.Geetanjali and Venkatachalam, filed a suit in O.S.No.4/2018 on the file of Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli, for partition o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document