SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3247

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
R.K. Madhavan - Appellant
Versus
Thulukan Chatram Charities Trust, Rep by its Muthavalli, Ameenuddin Abdul Hasan, Tiruvallur & Others - Respondent
C.R.P.No. 959 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. Uma Shankar, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, N.A. Nissar Ahmed, Advocate, R2 to R4, Dr. S. Suriya, Additional Government Pleader.

The patta granted under the Minor Inam Abolition Act attains finality, and no patta can be granted to another party without legal basis.

Headnote:

Civil Revision Petition - Waqf Property Dispute - Minor Inam Abolition Act - Ex.A8, Ex.A9, Ex.A10, Ex.A11 - The court found that the patta granted in favor of the first respondent under the Minor Inam Abolition Act had attained finality and no patta had been granted to the revision petitioner. The court also cited legal provisions from the Minor Inam Abolition Act and relevant case law to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The revision petitioner challenged the order of the Wakf Tribunal granting declaration that the order for registration of land in the name of the revision petitioner was null and void. The first respondent, a Trust, claimed ownership of the property under the Minor Inam Abolition Act and sought a declaration that the order was not binding on them.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the patta granted in favor of the first respondent under the Minor Inam Abolition Act had attained finality and no patta had been granted to the revision petitioner. The court also rejected the revision petitioner's claim based on the findings of a civil court and upheld the decision of the Wakf Tribunal.

Issues: Ownership of the property under the Minor Inam Abolition Act, validity of the order for registration of land in the name of the revision petitioner, and the impact of previous legal findings on the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The patta granted in favor of the first respondent under the Minor Inam Abolition Act had attained finality, and no patta had been granted to the revision petitioner. The court also rejected the revision petitioner's claim based on the findings of a civil court.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, r/w Section 83(a) or Waqf Act, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 in O.S.No.53 of 2019 on the file of Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai.)

This Revision is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by Wakf Tribunal granting declaration that order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 04.07.2016, ordering registration of the land measuring 0.00.5 hectares (60ftx56ft) in S.No.97B/3F of Naravarikuppam Village, Madavaram Taluk in the name of revision petitioner is null and void and not binding upon 1st respondent.

2. The first respondent is a Trust called Thulukkan Chatram Charities Trust administered by Mutawalli. It filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent is null and void and not binding upon it. According to the first respondent, originally it was the owner of property described in the plaint in S.No.97B/3F under Inam title deed T.D.1709. After coming into force of Minor Inam Abolition Act 30/63, Inam patta was granted in patta No.197 in favour of first respondent by Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet, by his order dated 22.04.1970. The petitioner herein, challenged the same before the Assistant Settlement Officer and the same was dismissed on 29.02.1972 as evidenced by Ex.A9. The revision petitioner again challenged the said order before the Settlement Officer and his appeal was dismissed by order dated 17.12.1974 as evidenced by Ex.A10. The revision petitioner had taken the matter to the Board of Revenue by revision and the same was also dismissed by order of Board of Revenue dated 28.10.1975 marked as Ex.A11. Therefore, the patta granted in favour of first respondent by Settlement Tahsildar under Minor Inam Abolition Act proceedings became final. After long time, the revision petitioner filed a petition dated 21.01.2013 before Revenue Divisional Officer, Ambattur, seeking issuance of patta in respect of very same property and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed a revision before 3rd respondent and the said revision was allowed by order dated 04.07.2016, directing grant of patta in the name of revision petitioner. The first respondent Trust filed the above suit for declaration that order passed by the 3rd respondent is null and void mainly on the ground that the 3rd respondent has no right or jurisdiction to order patta in the name of revision petitioner after Inam patta granted in the name of first respondent/Trust attained finality by order passed by Board of Revenue.

3. The revision petitioner filed a written statement stating that the suit property was purchased by his grandmother Ammani Ammal under sale deed dated 02.01.1907 marked as Ex.A2. The revision petitioner further submitted that said Ammani Ammal filed O.S.No.71 of 1931 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, against the 3rd parties and the first respondent Trust, which was arrayed as 5th defendant therein. In the said suit it was claimed by Ammani Ammal that said suit property belonged to first respondent Trust and said Ammani Ammal put up building thereon and let out the same to tenants and collecting the rent. It was also submitted that Ammani Ammal was paying rent to the first respondent Trust. It was claimed that in the said suit, finding was rendered that Ammani Ammal acquired Kudiwaram right in the suit site as against first respondent Trust. The revision petitioner further averred that based on the Civil Court finding, the 3rd respondent considered his application and came to the conclusion that revision petitioner had proved his right over the suit property and granted patta in his favour. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement and the same was adopted by other official defendants, wherein, it was averred that the 3rd respondent had gone through the various documents including the sale deed dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top