Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to resolve title disputes, directing parties to civil court for adjudication.

ORDER :

(P.B. BALAJI, J.)

The writ petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent vide

2. I have heard Mr.Babu Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.G.Prabu Rajadurai, learned counsel for Mr.K.Muthumalai, learned counsel for the third respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in S.No. 154/3 to an extent of 1 Acre 25 Cents originally belonged to one K.V.R.S. Mani Iyer. The said Mani Iyer had settled the said property in favour of his son K.R.Venkatraman on 23.01.1961 vide document No. 903/1961. In turn, the said K.R.Venkatraman sold the said property under sale deed dated 21.02.1963 in favour of one Muthammal @ Mariammal under document No.1163/1963. Subsequently, on 07.11.1964, the said K.R.Venkatraman and one Pushpam Ammal executed an exchange deed to an extent of 50 cents in S.No.154/3 under document No.7474/1964. The said Pushpam Ammal in and by sale deed dated 02.03.1966 conveyed the said extent of 50 cents in favour of Muthammal @ Mariammal under document No.2856/1966. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entire extent of 1.75 Acres thus belonged to said Muthammal @ Mariammal.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Muthammal @ Mariammal entered into an agreement of sale with one Rathinam Ammal, on 19.07.1981. The said agreement holder also filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.426 of 1982, which was decreed in favour of Rathinam Ammal and the Subordinate Judge directed the said Muthammal @ Mariammal to execute the sale deed. Exeuction Petition in E.P.No.158/1993 was filed and the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, also executed a sale deed in favour of Rathinam Ammal, on 21.12.1994 vide document No.5136/1994. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Rathinam Ammal also took possession of the subject property through Court on 05.12.1997.

5. The further contention of the petitioner is that S.No.154/3 was subdivided as S.No.154/3C5B1 of an extent of 1.25 Acres and joint patta issued in the names of Rathinam Ammal, Subba Reddiar and K.R.Venkatraman, vide patta No.1820 in respect of remaining 50 cents it was subdivided as S.No.154/3C5B2 and individual patta was issued in the name of Rathinam Ammal vide patta No.2302.

6. The case of the petitioner is that Rathinam Ammal executed a sale deed in favour of one Kalarani, on 18.11.1998 in respect if the said 50 cents and patta was also transferred in her name, vide patta No.1054. Having purchased the property, the said Kalarani executed a registered sale deed in favour of the brother of the petitioner, namely, Pradeep Kumar and also patta was also mutated in his name. According to the petitioner, in and by partition deed entered into between the petitioner and his family members on 04.03.2013, the property measuring 50 cents was allotted tot he petitioner and he has also obtained patta in his name on 28.02.2014 vide patta No.4344. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said 50 cents, having also obtained electricity service connection and is paying kists to the revenue authorities. The petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.1401 of 2015 before the Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam, seeking declaration and injunction, in view of the claim of one Eswari. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the V Additional District Judge, Madurai, and decreed in favour of the petitioner on 11.04.2023. One Mayan, who had instigated Eswari to claim title over the petitioner's property made an application seeking transfer of patta in the name of Sahundala, claiming that she had purchased the property in S.No.154/3C5 and patta also issued in her name vide patta No.460 on 02.06.2007 and that the patta No.4344 was wrongly issued to the petitioner. On enquiry, the first respondent has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the