Writ petitions concerning property title must be supported by prior adjudications confirming ownership; disputes require civil court jurisdiction.

O R D E R

The petitioner traces title over lands in survey Nos.197/1, 199 and

200/1 ad measuring about 3.22 acres from his late grandfather, P.N.V. Ramaswamy Gounder. The private respondents herein, or their predecessors, had filed O.S.No.240 of 2011 before the District Munsif Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Such suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 08.03.2018, which was subsequently affirmed by judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023 in A.S.No.21 of 2018. The petitioner's father and brother had filed W.P.(MD) No.17900 of 2018 seeking a grant of separate patta. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 15.07.2019 directing the petitioners therein to approach the competent civil court. The petitioner's father and brother thereafter filed O.S.No.104 of 2021 seeking a declaration of title. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and has not been restored as on date.

2. Meanwhile, the petitioner requested for mutation of the patta in his name. The revision petition relating thereto was considered and rejected by the District Revenue Officer by order dated 02.07.2024, which is impugned herein.

3. The contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner may be summarised as follows:

(i) The conclusion of the District Revenue Officer that the petitioner should approach the jurisdictional civil court is unsustainable because the petitioner's title through his grandfather was decided in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 08.03.2018 in O.S.No.240 of 2011. The title of the petitioner's grandfather was further affirmed by judgment and decree in A.S.No.21 of 2018.

(ii)Because the title of the petitioner had been previously decided, any subsequent suit relating to title would be barred by res judicata. In support of the proposition that title may be decided even in a suit for injunction, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sulochanamma vs. Narayan Nair reported in (1994) 2 SCC 14 , particularly paragraph 9 thereof, and the judgment in Annaimuthu Thevar (dead) by legal representatives vs. Alagammal and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 202 , particularly paragraphs Nos.30 to

34 were relied upon.

(iii)As regards the order dated 15.07.2019 in W.P.(MD) No. 17990 of

2018, the said order was issued without noticing that title had been decided in the above mentioned original suit. In fact, the judgment and decree of the first appeal was subsequent to the order in the Writ Petition.

(iv)The private respondents rely on an unregistered partnership deed and have not cited any other documents to establish their title.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted as follows in reply:

(i) The petitioner's father had filed W.P.(MD) No.21110 of 2017 seeking a survey of the lands forming subject of this Writ Petition and withdrew the said Writ Petition.

(ii)The petitioner has repeatedly requested for mutation of patta without obtaining a declaration of title from the civil court.

Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned order.

5. The contentions of learned counsel for respondents 4 to 15 may be summarised as under:

(i) The petitioner's grandfather acknowledged and recognised that the property belongs to the partnership firm. This is clear from the sale deed dated 14.05.1979 in favour of Kalathiinathan, which was attested by the petitioner's grandfather.

(ii) In the family partition deed, the petitioner's grandfather referred to the 1/7 share in the property, thereby, ac