Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20944
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
H.SHOWKATH ALI – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
A co-owner has the lawful right to deal with their undivided share in property, and issues of ownership should be adjudicated in a partition action.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - Section 44 of the Act - The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the legality of a co-owner's right to deal with their undivided share without restriction, as governed by the relevant statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed that the 6th respondent fraudulently obtained a settlement deed and filed a partition suit. They sought to cancel the registration of the deed, asserting misleading conduct by the 6th respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition misconceived, highlighting that there is no statutory bar preventing a co-owner from dealing with their undivided share. The court indicated that specific allotment is determined in partition suits.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the registration of a settlement deed by a co-owner, based on allegations of fraud, has merit under the applicable legal framework.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that co-owners can legally deal with their undivided shares as stated in Section 44 of the Act, and issues regarding title are suited for adjudication in partition suits.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed.
O R D E R
By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the 6th respondent herein had mislead the 6th petitioner by making false statement and fraudulently obtained the settlement deed in the year 2004 in his favour. In the year 2024 he had settled the property in favour of his family members/respondents 7 and 8. The 6th respondent has filed partition suit in OS.No.281 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kallakurichi in which exparte preliminary decree was passed on 11.04.2023 and registered the exparte preliminary decree before the Sub Registrar, Thiyagadurgam/3rd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners have sent a representation on 10.06.2024 to the respondents 1 to 5 herein to cancel the registration of said documents. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2, 3 & 4 and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 5 and perused the materials available on record.
4. At the outset, this Court is of the view that this petition is misconceived for the simple reason there is no bar under law to deal with the undivided share of the Coowner. The Coowner can deal with the undivided share as proved under Section 44 of the Act, specific allotment can be seen only in partition suit. Hence, I do not find any merits in the writ petition.
5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. No costs.
24.07.2024 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No tsh To
1.The District Collector Office of the District Collector Kallakurichi Town and District.
2.The District Registrar Office of the District Registrar Kallakurichi Town and District.
3.The Sub Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar Thiagathurugam Town Kallakurichi District.
4.The Block Development Officer, Panchyat Union Office Thiagathurugam Town Kallakurichi District.
5.The Assistant Director Town and Country Planning Villupuram Zone Villupuram Town and District.
N .SATHISH KUMAR, J.
tsh
24.07.2024
