O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order of the 6^th respondent, dated

20.12.2022 effecting mutation of patta in the name of the 8^th respondent, without notice to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The property which is the subject matter of the dispute admittedly belong to one K.Kannan, who died on 17.03.2012 leaving behind his mother, namely the 7^th respondent and wife/petitioner as his only class-I legal heirs in terms of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any notice to the petitioner, in whose name patta was mutated along with her mother-in-law's name, the 6^th respondent has proceeded to remove the name of the petitioner and include the name of the 8^th respondent. The said mutation is based on a settlement deed executed by the mother of the deceased Kannan, namely, the 7^th respondent in favour of her grandson-son, who is the 8^th respondent.

4. The learned Government Advocate justifies the mutation on the ground that the mutation was effected only based on the registered settlement deed and therefore, there is no infirmity in the action of the 6^th respondent.

5. However, I am unable to see how the 6^th respondent