Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
G. Sabari Manikandan & Anothers - Appellant
Versus
S. Rathinavelu & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 14913 of 2015 & W.M.P. No. 3223 of 2017 & M.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 2015
Decided On : 15-06-2022
For the Petitioners:G. Munirathnam, Advocate. For the Respondents: R3 to R7, Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader R1, M/s. J.R.K. Bhavanantham, R2, M/s. P.B. Ramanujam.
The court emphasized that the dispute was civil in nature and declined to interfere, granting the petitioners liberty to appeal before the Division Bench.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Property Dispute - TNHB Act, 1970, Letter of Administration Act - [TNHB Act, 1970, Letter of Administration Act] - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to annul the registration of a forged settlement deed and initiate a criminal complaint, stating that it was a civil dispute. The petitioners claimed that their father purchased the property through TNHB and executed a settlement deed in their favor. The first respondent obtained a Letter of Administration based on a forged will. The court declined to interfere, granting the petitioners liberty to appeal before the Division Bench.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to annul a forged settlement deed and initiate a criminal complaint against the respondents, claiming that their father purchased a property through TNHB and executed a settlement deed in their favor. The first respondent obtained a Letter of Administration based on a forged will. The petitioners' application for revocation of the Letter of Administration was dismissed, and they filed an appeal before the Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere with the impugned order, stating that it was a civil dispute and granting the petitioners liberty to appeal before the Division Bench.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the settlement deed and the Letter of Administration obtained based on a forged will.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the dispute was civil in nature and declined to render an opinion on the merits of the case, granting the petitioners liberty to appeal before the Division Bench.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with the above observations, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the proceedings No.3966/A3/2014 dated 09.03.2015 on the file of the fourth respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to annul the registration of the forged Settlement Deed Doc. No.473/2013 dated 22.02.2013 on the file of the fifth respondent/SRO, Adyar, Chennai and direct the eighth respondent to initiate Criminal complaint against the first and second respondent on the basis of the complaint dated 03.12.2012, 05.04.2013 and 29.04.2013 and restore the possession of the property to the petitioners.)
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the proceedings No.3966/A3/2014 dated 09.03.2015 on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same and to consequently direct the fourth respondent to annul the registration of the forged Settlement Deed Doc. No.473/2013 dated 22.02.2013 on the file of the fifth respondent/SRO, Adyar, Chennai and to direct the eighth respondent to initiate criminal complaint against the respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of the complaint dated 03.12.2012, 05.04.2013 and 29.04.2013 and to restore the possession of the property to the petitioners.
2. The case of the petitioners is that their father had purchased a house plot in Plot No.495/W, Old No.21, New No.37, 4th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 20 of an extent of 1 ground and 600 sq.ft., comprised in T.S.No.46 parts, block No.13 of Kalikundram Village, Mylapore – Triplicane Taluk, Chennai by way of an allotment order dated 01.08.1970 by the TNHB on the basis of his application dated 30.01.1970. Thereafter, the petitioners father mortgaged the property on 01.11.1973 in favour of the Governor of Tamil Nadu for a sum of Rs.18,400/- for the construction of a dwelling house and repaid the entire loan amount and became the absolute owner of the property.
3. The further case of the petitioners is that their father executed a settlement deed vide Document No.1859/2012 dated 10.09.2012 on the file of SRO, Adyar, Chennai, in favour of the petitioners. During his lifetime, the petitioners father allowed his father – in – law one K.Shanmugam to reside in the subject property, however, the said K.Shanmugam without any title or authority executed forged Will in favour of his son/ first respondent herein at the instigation of respondents 1 and 2 and on the basis of the forged Will, the first respondent obtained Letter of Administration dated 06.01.2003 in O.P.No.559 of 2001 without impleading the petitioners and thereafter registered a forged settlement deed vide Document No.473 of 2013 dated 22.02.2013 on the file of SRO, Adyar, Chennai.
4. The further case of the petitioners is that on coming to know about the fraudulent act of the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners made complaint before the respondents 3 and 4 and since there was no response, filed W.P.No.12431 of 2014 before this Court. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23.02.2015 made in the said writ petition, the impugned order came to be passed. Hence, this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the subject property is the self acquired property of the father of the petitioner and he executed settlement deed in favour of the petitioners. The said K.Shanmugam is the father – in – law of the petitioners father and on his request the petitioners father allowed him to reside in the subject property, however, he executed forged Will in favour of his son/ first respondent at the instigation of respondents 1 and 2 and on the basis of the forged Will, the first respondent obtained Letter of Administration dated 06.01.2003 in O.P.No.559 of 2001 without impleading the petitioners.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that on coming
