Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18843
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Ramadoss N – Appellant
Versus
Additional Collector (Revenu – Respondent
A sale agreement does not convey ownership of property, as supported by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, influencing the determination of legal standing in property disputes.
Headnote:
Property - Joint Patta - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Summary: The court interpreted Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, establishing that a sale agreement does not confer title. The court set aside a prior order directing parties to seek resolution in civil court, affirming the petitioner's standing based on established title.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a decision that voided the inclusion of his deceased wife's name as a joint pattadhar on property, following a dispute that arose from competing claims over land that once belonged to a prior owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the impugned order unjust, noting the sixth respondent lacked standing due to not holding any title beyond a mere sale agreement, which cannot constitute property ownership.
Issues: Whether the impugned order was justified in light of existing property rights and the sixth respondent's claim under a sale agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that an agreement of sale is not equivalent to ownership and cannot confer rights over the property, reinforcing that the petitioner's title was valid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, restoring the petitioner's rights to a joint patta in favor of the legal heirs.
O R D E R
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent.
2.Even though respondents 4 and 5 have been served and their names are printed in the cause list, they have not chosen to enter appearance.
3.Ezhilmalar Ramadoss, wife of the writ petitioner purchased the petition mentioned property vide registered sale deed dated 19.06.1986. She is no more. The writ petitioner therefore applied to the revenue authorities for issuance of joint patta in respect of the petition- mentioned plot of land (Plot No.41) measuring 4920 sq.ft. The petitioner's request was considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tanjore who vide order dated 29.07.2021 directed inclusion of the petitioner's wife's name as joint pattadhar on the strength of the sale deed dated 19.06.1986. Aggrieved by the same, the sixth respondent filed revision before the Additional Collector (Revenue), Tanjore. In the revision petition dated 06.09.2021, the fourth respondent figured as a joint applicant. The first respondent vide order dated 23.12.2022 set aside the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tanjore and relegated the aggrieved party to go before the jurisdictional civil Court. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.
4.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and direct the authorities to issue joint patta in the names of the legal heirs of Mrs.Ezhilmalar Ramadoss.
5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned. He pointed out that since dispute had arisen between the parties, it is only just and proper that they move the jurisdictional civil Court and not the revenue authorities. He justified the impugned order in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 2011 (2) CWC 242 ( Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd V. The District Collector ). The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent also submitted that there is a serious dispute regarding title and that the impugned order has to be sustained. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
7.There is no dispute that the property originally belonged to one Subramaniam Pillai. One Mangalambal, W/o.Raju Moopanar purchased 9 acres and 76 cents of the land from Subramaniam Pillai vide sale deed dated 26.01.1946. The said Mangalambal was blessed with two sons and five daughters. Among the children, partition took place way back on 09.10.1959(document No.3005/1959). Pushpanatha Moopanar was allotted “A” schedule property. The other son Saminatha Moopanar was allotted “B” schedule property. According to the writ petitioner, Pushpanatha Moopanar plotted out “A” schedule property which measured an extent of 2 acres and 84 cents. The properties allotted in “A” schedule and “B” schedule are comprised in survey No.171. While Pushpanatha Moopanar was allotted 2 acres 84 cents in the eastern side of survey No.171, Saminatha Moopanar got 2 acres and 84 cents in the middle portion. Pushpanatha Moopanar had plotted out what was allotted to him. He sold plot Nos.39, 40 and 41 in favour of one Rajamanikkam. Rajamanikkam sold plot Nos.40 and 41 in favour of V.N.Swaminathan, then minor represented by his guardian Subramaniam. Ezhilmalar Ramadoss, writ petitioner's wife purchased plot No.41 vide sale deed dated 19.06.1986 (document No.2196/1986) from V.N.Swaminathan.
8.While so, the fourth respondent herein i.e. Padmavathi, W/o.Saminatha Moopanar executed power of attorney in favour of the fifth respondent(A.Gopi) in respect of plot Nos.39 and 41. Based on the said power of attorney, Gopi
