Subdivision of property must respect existing legal rights and require notification of all parties involved to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

The writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent in Moo.Mu.Aa3/5234/2021 dated 09.04.2022.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in re-survey No.430/3A1A of Pacode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, measuring 29.500 cents belongs to the petitioner's family and the said lands comprised in re-survey No.430/3A1A correlated to old survey No.2705, being portion of a larger extent of 38.950 cents, was subject matter of final decree made in O.S.No.416 of 1974 dated 22.08.1978. The said O.S.No.416 of 1974 was filed for partition and 38.950 cents stood allotted to Neelu @ Annammal and the said Neelu @ Annammal took possession and also mutated revenue records in her name. Subsequently, on 04.03.2004, the said Neelu @ Annammal executed two settlement deeds in favour of her son, viz., Selvadhas and her daughter, viz., Mary Pushpa Bai. The writ petitioner is the son of said Selvadhas. Under the said settlement deed, the son was given 28.95 cents and daughter Mary Pushpa Bai was given 10 cents. The son Selvadhas pursuant to the settlement deed dated 04.03.2004, effected mutation of the revenue records in his name and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property of 28.95 cents that was settled on him. However, subsequent to the death of the said Selvadhas, his legal heirs have entered into a registered partition deed on 05.08.2020, dividing the 28.95 cents and in terms of said partition deed, mutation of the revenue records was also effected pertaining to the respective portions allotted to the legal heirs and the legal heirs also took possession. While being so, one Rajayyan Robin @ Thangappan, who is the father of the fifth respondent, filed an execution petition in E.P.No.10 of 2016, against the petitioners, on the basis of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.484 of 1961 and claimed delivery of possession of 22.514 cents from and out of the said 38.95 cents. In fact, even according to the petitioner, the said 22.514 cents was ear marked as the 38^th plot in the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.484 of 1961. The petitioner filed a claim petition in the said execution petition with respect to 11.690 cents and 10.824 cents, in E.A.No.132 of 2018 in E.P.No.10 of 2016 on the ground that in O.S.No.416 of 1974, there was a specific finding that the decree in the said suit in O.S.No.484 of 1961 would not bind the plaintiffs. The said claim petition was allowed and the execution petition was dismissed. Despite the said Rajayyan Robin @ Thangappan,being unsuccessful in the litigation, after a lapse of 18 years, the fifth respondent approached the Registration Department and sought for cancellation of the document No.382/2004 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.13128 of 2022 and this Court has admitted the writ petition and granted interim order in favour of the petitioner on 24.06.2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has cancelled the subdivision in favour of the petitioner citing pendency of civil cases.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Tahsildar had proceeded to subdivide the property and to issue patta only based on the order passed in E.A.No.132 of 2018 in E.P.No.10 of 2016. The Execution Petition was filed by none else than the father of the fifth respondent and therefore, the fifth respondent cannot have any better right than his father. The impugned order is therefore called in question in the writ petition.

4. I have heard Mr. M.Saravana Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mrs.V.Janaki Devi, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the fifth respondent's father had attempted to seek delivery of possession of an extent of 22.514 cents which formed part of 38.950 cents, the petitioner filed a claim petition and the Executing Court, u