Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 7248

W.A.(MD)Nos.271, 1225, 1806 of 2024, 2386, 2894 & 2895 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.2639, 9355, 13735 of 2024, 13401, 16180 & 16183 of 2025
1.W.A(MD)No.271 of 2024:
1.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple and
Arulmigu Sri Meenakshiamman Temple,
Ambathurai Village,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul District.
2.The Thakkar / Manager,
Arulmigu Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple and
Arulmigu Sri Meenakshiamman Temple,
Ambathurai Village,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Appellants/Respondents 5 & 6
Vs.
1.P.Sukumar ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Chinnalapatti,
Dindigul District.
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Office of the Joint Commissioner,
H.R & C.E Department,
Ellis Nagar,
Madurai.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
H.R. and C.E. Department,
Dindigul. ... Respondents 2 to 5/Respondents 1 to 4
6.The Tahsildar,
Aathoor Taluk,
Dindigul. ... 6th Respondent
(R-6 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 23.09.2025 made in W.A(MD)No.271 of 2024)
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.22347 of 2019 dated 04.02.2020 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Loganathan (R1)
: Mr.J.Ashok (R2 to R6) Additional Government Pleader
2.W.A(MD)No.1225 of 2024:
1.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple and
Arulmigu Sri Meenakshiamman Temple,
Ambathurai Village,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul District.
2.The Thakkar / Manager,
Arulmigu Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple and
Arulmigu Sri Meenakshiamman Temple,
Ambathurai Village,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Appellants/Respondents 5 & 6
Vs.
1.S.Mahalakshmi ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Chinnalapatti,
Dindigul District.
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Office of the Joint Commissioner,
H.R & C.E Department,
Ellis Nagar, Madurai.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
H.R. and C.E. Department,
Dindigul. ... Respondents 2 to 5/Respondents 1 to 4
6.The Tahsildar,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul. ... 6th Respondent
(R-6 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 23.09.2025 made in W.A(MD)No.1225 of 2024)
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.7347 of 2018 dated 28.02.2019 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Loganathan (R1)
: Mr.J.Ashok (R2 to R6) Additional Government Pleader
3.W.A(MD)No.1806 of 2024:
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Bathrakaliamman and Meenakshiamman Temple,
Ambathurai Village,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Appellant/ 3rd Party
Vs.
L.Viswalingam (Died)
1. V.Sulochana
2.V.Jeyaraj
3.R.Geetha
4.The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Dindigul.
6.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District, Dindigul
7.The Sub Registrar,
Chinnalapatti, Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
8.The Tahsildar,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul. ... Respondents
(R-8 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 23.09.2025 made in W.A(MD)No.1806 of 2024)
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.18797 of 2016 dated 01.12.2021 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For Respondents : Ms.Jesima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates (R1 to R3)
: Mr.J.Ashok (R4 to R8) Additional Government Pleader
4.W.A(MD)No.2386 of 2025:
Arulmigu Bathra Kaliamman and Meenakshi Amman Temple,
Ambathurai Village,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul.
Represented by its Hereditary Trustee,
A.Duraipandian,
S/o.Harikrishnasamy,
No.1/174, Aranmanai,
Ambathurai Post,
Gandhigramam Via,
Dindigul District. ... Appellant/ 4th Respondent
(Cause title is accepted vide order dated 23.04.2025 in C.M.P(MD)No.6766 of 2025)
Vs.
1.N.Palanichamy ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Commissioner (HR & CE),
HR & CE Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 34.
3.The Joint Commissioner (HR & CE),
HR & CE Department,
Dindigul District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner (HR & CE),
HR and CE Department,
Dindigul District.
5.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
O/o.The Sub-Registrar,
Chinnalapatti,
Dindigul District.
7.The Tahsildar,
Aathur Taluk, Ambadurai Village,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.5309 of 2023 dated 11.09.2024 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Loganathan (R1)
: Mr.J.Ashok (R2 to R7) Additional Government Pleader
5.W.A(MD)No.2894 of 2025:
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Bathra Kaliamman and Meenakshi Amman Temple,
Ambathurai Village,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul.
Presently in-charge of
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Srinivasa Perumal Thirukovil,
Malayadivaram,
Dindigul. ... Appellant/ 4th Respondent
Vs.
1.N.Palanichamy ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Commissioner (HR & CE),
HR & CE Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai – 34.
3.The Joint Commissioner (HR & CE),
HR & CE Department,
Dindigul District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner (HR & CE),
HR & CE Department,
Dindigul District.
5.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
O/o.The Sub-Registrar,
Chinnalapatti,
Dindigul District.
7.The Tahsildar,
Aathur Taluk, Ambadurai Village,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.5309 of 2023 dated 15.06.2023 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Loganathan (R1)
: Mr.J.Ashok (R2 to R7) Additional Government Pleader
6.W.A(MD)No.2895 of 2025:
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Bathrakaliamman and Meenakshi Amman Temple,
Ambathurai Village,
Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul.
Presently in-charge of
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Srinivasa Perumal Thirukovil,
Malayadivaram,
Dindigul. ... Appellant/ 4th Respondent
Vs.
1.N.Palanichamy ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Commissioner (HR & CE),
HR & CE Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai – 34.
3.The Joint Commissioner (HR & CE),
HR & CE Department,
Dindigul District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner (HR & CE),
HR & CE Department,
Dindigul District.
5.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
O/o.The Sub-Registrar,
Chinnalapatti,
Dindigul District.
7.The Tahsildar,
Aathur Taluk, Ambadurai Village,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.5309 of 2023 dated 13.03.2023 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Loganathan (R1)
: Mr.J.Ashok (R2 to R7) Additional Government Pleader
*****

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: AN. Ramanathan
For the Respondents: S. Loganathan, J. Ashok, Jesima Yasmin

A party bound by a long-standing compromise decree cannot re-agitate ownership claims in collateral proceedings. When a court-ordered survey confirms that disputed property falls within the portion of land explicitly relinquished in such a decree, the owner is precluded from challenging its registration.

Headnote:(A) Letters Patent - Clause 15 - Appeal against orders regarding property title and registration - Property rights established via historical compromise decree - Right to challenge ownership in collateral proceedings after significant lapse of time - Property identification through survey - Where an owner has relinquished land rights via a legally recorded compromise decree, such owner cannot subsequently re-agitate title claims to block property transactions in collateral challenges. (Paras 9, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant asserted ownership over certain land parcels, challenging the registration of deeds by the respondents. The dispute concerned whether the subject land was part of the remaining property held by the appellant or part of a land extent specifically relinquished under a compromise decree finalized several decades ago. For adjudication, an independent survey was directed to identify the precise demarcations of the properties and their relation to the earlier settlement.

Findings of Court:
The court-ordered survey confirmed that the properties corresponding to the registration requests fell entirely within the specific extent of land that had been previously relinquished by the appellant under the terms of a long-standing compromise decree. Consequently, the court found no infirmity in the earlier orders directing the registration of these documents.

Issues: 1. Whether the properties in dispute are located within the land extent relinquished under a previous court-recorded compromise. 2. Whether the original owner can re-litigate title to land already settled through compromise in collateral proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a compromise decree has been recorded, the parties are bound by its terms. Where a survey demonstrates that the properties in question fall within the area relinquished during that settlement, the claim of ownership by the original party is rendered invalid, and they are precluded from challenging the registration of such properties in collateral proceedings.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. conflicting claims regarding the standing of property under a compromise versus temple ownership. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
2. impact of prior compromise decrees on current ownership claims. (Para 9)
3. court-directed official surveys to determine property boundaries and encroachment status. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. land relinquished via a legal compromise decree cannot be reclaimed and is valid for registration. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.)

1. The above six Writ Appeals are arising against the orders of the learned Single Judge on various dates. Since all the Writ Appeals are related to the property situate in S.No.14 of Ambathurai Village, Dindigul District, which had been claimed by the appellant as the Temple property, we deem it appropriate to dispose of all the above appeals by way of a common order. Among the above appeals, WA(MD).No.2895 & 2894 of 2025 have been filed against the daily order dated 13.03.2023 and 15.06.2023 respectively in WP(MD).No.5309 of 2023.

2. Now that the main writ petition in WP(MD).No.5309 of 2023 was ultimately allowed vide order dated 11.09.2024, and a separate Writ Appeal has been filed in WA(MD).No.2386 of 2025 against the final order, the issue urged in WA.(MD).Nos.2894 & 2895 of 2025 become infructuous. Therefore, WA.(MD).Nos.2894 & 2895 of 2025 are liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

3. In view of the above position, now we need to consider the other four Writ Appeals.

4. For convenience sake, we deem it appropriate to give details about the Writ Appeals in a tabular column. The same is as follows:-

S.No.	Writ Appeal Number	Writ Petition Number	Order date	Relief sought in the Writ Petition	Survey Number
1	WA(MD).No.271 of 2024	WP(MD).No. 22347/2019	04.02.2020	Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned refusal check slip	14/8
2	WA(MD).No.1225 of 2024	WP(MD).No.7347/2018	28.02.2019	Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus to quash the order of Joint Commissioner dated 08.03.2018 and consequential direction to register the document	14/9
3	WA(MD).No.1806 of 2024	WP(MD)No. 18797/2016	01.12.2021	Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner dated 23.02.2015 and consequential direction to register the document	14/1A1
4	WA(MD).No.2386 of 2025	WP(MD).No.5309/2023	11.09.2024	Writ of Mandamus directing the Sub Registrar to register the Sale Deed in relation to Writ petitioner property in S.No.14/13 and further declare that the HR & CE officials have no right or claim in realtion to any portion of land in S.No.14/13	14/13

5. All the writ petitions impugned in these Writ Appeals were allowed on the premise that the property qua S.Nos.14/8, 14/9, 14/1A1 and 14/13 are not the property of the Temple. But, according to the appellant, the property belongs to the Temple, and that the Temple filed a suit in O.S.No.302 of 1961 before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul in respect of the property situate in S.No.14 of a total extent of 7 Acres 84 Cents in Ambathurai Village. In the above suit, the learned District Munsif declared that the lease deed dated 01.07.1960 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 of the suit is not valid and binding upon the “Temple” [hereinafter called “appellant”] and directed the 2nd defendant to the suit to put the Appellant-temple in possession of the property.

6. The 2nd defendant of the suit took the matter in Appeal in A.S.No.156 of 1963, but, vide order dated 16.12.1964, the same was dismissed. Again, the 2nd defendant preferred a Second Appeal in S.A.No.168 of 1965, wherein a Memorandum of Compromise was recorded between the parties, and the Second Appeal was disposed of in terms of Memorandum of Compromise vide order dated 16.04.1970.

7. According to the compromise, in the total extent of 7 Acres 84 Cents, the appellant/temple has given up their rights to an extent of 3 Acres 44 cents properties on the southern eastern side of Survey No.14 on payment of Rs.12,040/-. As per the compromise, the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document