The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry under Section 23(1)(a) of the Pondicherry Settlement Act and the petitioner's right to present materials for consideration.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in No.2987/2009/DOS/PP dated 30.03.2009 and the consequential proceedings in No.(6).8379/DOS/APP/2009 dated 04.12.2009 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from in any way holding any enquiry in petition No.2987/DOS/PP dated 26.02.2009 given by the 4th respondent on the question of title and possession of the property described in the schedule.)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings of the respondents and the consequent direction for the petitioner to appear before the respondents for enquiry.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property in survey No.140/125, Reddiyar Palayam Revenue Village, Ulavarkarai Municipality, was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 8.8.2005 from one Mary Antoine David and since the date of purchase the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. It is the further averment of the petitioner that his vendor had purchased the property from his vendor in the year 1992 and for more than 40 years, the petitioner and his vendor have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and the aforesaid fact has also been recorded before the Panchayatadars and registered as Document No.587 of 1988 before the Sub- Registrar, Ulavarkarai.

3. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the predecessor to the petitioner's vendor had obtained patta in Patta No.293 under sale deed dated 8.8.2005 and that the petitioner has been in possession of the schedule mentioned property since the date of purchase on 8.8.2005. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 4th respondent, scheming to grab the property, obtained a power of attorney from one Louis Philip Gnanaprakasam of Singapore, alleged to be dated 10.08.2007 and with the use of the said power of attorney, has created a sale deed, alleged to be dated 19.11.2008, in favour of the 5th respondent, her close relative, which document is sham and nominal. It is the further averment of the petitioner that though the sale consideration, as alleged in the sale deed is Rs.52,55,000/-, however, the sale deed contains false recitals to the effect that the possession of the property had been handed over to the 5th respondent. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 4th respondent as well as Louis Philip Gnanaprakasam are total strangers to the property and that the general power of attorney does not speak about how the said Louis Philip Gnanaprakasam got title to the said property.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 have fabricated evidence with intent to grab the property of the petitioner. It is the further averment of the petitioner that without going to the civil court to establish her title, by filing a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, the 4th respondent has given a representation dated 26.2.2009 to the 2nd respondent alleging that she has sold the property to the 5th respondent for which notice dated 30.03.2009 was served on the petitioner for the enquiry to be held on 5.4.09. It is further averred that the petitioner appeared for the enquiry and gave his objections on 07.10.09 pointing out that the title and possession cannot be gone into by the 2nd respondent.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that he has filed a suit in O.S. No.1074 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry, against respondents 4 and 5 for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing or interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property along with I.A. No.2715 of 2009 for interim injunction in which notice has been ordered to the respondent. However, the 2nd respondent had sent a letter dated 4.12.09 calling upon the pe