SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C.SARAVANAN, JJ
T.Karunanithi – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District – Respondent
W.A.No.2456 of 2025 | W.P.No.6 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Pranesh Vilvan
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader

Revenue Authorities are bound by Civil Court judgments concerning property rights.

Headnote:In an intra-Court appeal challenging a Writ Order, the issues surrounding the granting of patta were examined. The prior decision of the Civil Court binding upon the Revenue Authorities was reiterated, emphasizing the legal principle that Revenue Authorities cannot disregard civil judgments in matters concerning property rights. The court concludes that there is no infirmity in the lower court's order of dismissal of the writ petition, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the issuing of patta and binding nature of prior court decision. (Para 2)
2. court affirms the binding nature of civil court judgments on revenue authorities. (Para 3)
3. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 4)

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The present Intra-Court Appeal has been instituted challenging the Writ Order dated 12.03.2025 in W.P.No.6 of 2023.

2. The Writ Petitioner is the Appellant before this Court. The order passed by the 1st Respondent granting patta in the name of the 4th respondent came to be challenged in the writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court considered the issue and gave a finding in Paragraph No.4, which reads as under:-

4. O.S.No.879 of 1988 was filed by the father of

the petitioner seeking relief of permanent injunction and O.S.No.711 of 1989 was filed by the rival party who was also seeking permanent injunction, not to grant any electricity connection to the father of the petitioner. Both the suits were taken up together and joint trial was conducted. One of the main issue that was framed by the trial Court is, as to whether the predecessor-in-title had the right to convey the property in favour of the petitioner's father. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a conclusion that predecessor-in-title had no right to convey the property and therefore, no title passed on to the petitioner's father. Accordingly, the suit filed by the petitioner's father in O.S.No.879 of 1988 was dismissed and the suit filed by the rival party in O.S.No.711 of 1989 was allowed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree with delay also came to be dismissed.

3. The Writ Petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the Judgment and Decree passed by the Civil Court are binding on the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Authorities cannot disregard the Judgment of the Civil Court while considering the application seeking Patta, Cancellation of Patta or to mutate the revenue records.

4. The legal position reiterated by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the Writ Order impugned is in consonance with the established principles and this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the order impugned. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top