ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to e/f/ 5082/12 ,1 dated 09.04.2012 from the first respondent and quash the same, which confirms the order dated 08.02.2012 in g/K/4308/2011 m/1 passed by the second respondent and direct the second respondent to restore the entries made in the registers maintained in this regard in respect of the properties under issues relating to the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he is an absolute owner of the properties comprised in Ka.Sa.No.62/1A, 632A1 64/2, 66/2, 65/2 and 65/3A, situated in Pattanam Village covering an extent of 7.76 acres of dry lands by virtue of sale deed Nos.757/2005 and 3464/2007 dated 14.02.2005 and 03.04.2007 respectively registered with Sub Registrar, Singanallur, Coimbatore District. The third respondent filed petition before the second respondent as against the petitioner and the respondents 4 & 5, claiming share in Ka.Sa.No.62/1, 65 and 66 situated in Pattanam Village, on the ground that the petitioner purchased the properties in an unlawful manner by committing an act of fraud and consequently prayed to take action as against the respondents 4 & 5 and the petitioner. After conducting enquiry, the second respondent passed an order that the sale deed executed by the respondents 4 & 5 is not valid and cancelled the document entries made in the register. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the first respondent. The said revision petition also dismissed by an order dated 09.04.2012. Further the case of the petitioner is that, he is a bonafide purchaser for consideration and without knowing that in respect of the very same properties, already civil disputes are pending between the respondents 3 to 5 in S.A.No.1741 of 2001 and the petitioner got himself impleaded in the said Second Appeal pending before this Court. Therefore, he filed this present Writ Petition with the above said prayer.

3. Heard Mr.S.Sabarish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.

4. The disputed properties originally belonged to one Palanisamy Naidu and he executed Will in respect of the disputed properties in favour his second wife Ranganayaki ammal and his three sons born through her viz., Govindaraju, Jeganathan and Balasundaram. The said Govindaraju and the wife of Balasundaram are the respondents 3 & 4 herein. According to the Will, his second wife Ranganayaki ammal and his three sons are entitled to have ¼ share in the entire properties belonged to the said Palanisamy Naidu. While the said Ranganayaki ammal was alive, the third son viz., Balasundaram viz., the husband of the fourth respondent died and the legal representatives of the said Balasundaram are entitled to have 1/4th share, as per the Will executed by the said Palanisamy Naidu. However, while the said Ranganayaki ammal was very much alive, as if there was a family arrangement in respect of her share and the share of the said Ranganayaki ammal are divided into all sons including the said Balasundaram. On the strength of the family arrangement as well as the Will executed by the said Palanisamy Naidu, the fourth respondent herein executed the sale deed in favour of the fifth respondent. In turn, the fifth respondent sold out the properties in favour of the petitioner herein. After coming to know about the above transactions, the third respondent i.e., one of the brother of the said Balasundaram viz., Govindaraju filed a petition before the second respondent challenging patta issued in favour of the purchaser viz., the petitioner herein.

5. On receipt of the same, the second respondent issued notice to all the parties and conducted enquiry and found that the said Ranganayaki ammal is very much alive and the fourth respondent has no title over the property and she ought not to have executed the sale deed in favour of the fifth respondent herein. Accordingly, the second respondent can