JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 4.9.2014 in proceedings Na.Ka.2812/2014/A4 as confirmed by the 1st respondent by his order dated 03.06.2015, in proceedings in Pa.Mu.24869/2014/U4, and quash the same.)

1. This writ petition has been filed questioning the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 04.09.2014 and as confirmed by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 03.06.2015.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject properties were purchased by the petitioner's father's paternal uncle in the year 1933. After his demise, the petitioner and his father were in continuous uninterpreted possession and enjoyment of the properties and the revenue documents were also issued in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was also paying the kist for the lands and was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent was making attempts to get a patta for the lands in S.No.28/8, 30/2 and 30/4. Hence, the petitioner made an objetion to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent passed an order by including the name of the 4th respondent in Patta No.564.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 04.09.2014, dismissed the appeal and it was subsequently confirmed by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 03.06.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 12.08.2022, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent was relying upon a Sale Deed dated 16.08.1994, which was registered before the Sub Registrar, Parasala at Kerala and one Sadasivam who had purchased the property had executed a Will on 28.03.1996 and bequeathed the property in favour of the 4th respondent's father. He in turn had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the 4th respondent. Hence, it was submitted that the very source of title is questionable, since the document was registered before the Sub Registrar who did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the document.

6. This Court on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, passed the following order:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impleaded fifth respondent who is the father of the fourth respondent claims ownership over the property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 16.08.1994. This sale deed is said to have been registered at Kerala and therefore registration of this document has been put to challenge and the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in M.Manoharadhas Vs. C.Arumughaperumal Pillai and another [2003 (1) CTC 539]. In view of the same, the learned counsel submitted that the settlement deed that was executed by the impleaded fifth respondent in favour of the fourth respondent through settlement deed dated 13.01.2014, is also unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the learned counsel sought for interference of the order passed by the second respondent which was subsequently confirmed by the first respondent.

2.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent sought for sometime to make their submissions. The learned counsel for impleaded fifth respondent also sought for sometime to make their submissions.

3.Post this Writ Petition under the caption “Part Heard Cases” on 29.08.2022.

7. The writ petition thereafter came up for hearing on 29.08.2022. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent filed typed set of papers and made his submissions based on the documents that were relied upon in the typed set of papers. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the documents which was registered before the Sub Registrar at Kerala was t