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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.CHRISTOPHER EDISON SUNDER – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT – Respondent
WP 32304/2012



Advocates:
['M/S S KINGSTON JEROLD', 'RHEEFA JEROLD', 'S SABARISH DT', 'M/S C SAIFULLAH', '', 'A ANNADURAI', 'AGP W', 'R- B BALABHUVANESWARI', 'W/O BALASUNDARAM', '', 'HEAD POST OFFICE ROAD', 'COIMBATORE', 'R DECEASED']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.08.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.32304 of 2012

and M.P.No.1 of 2012

G.Christopher Edison Sundar Singh

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Additional District Executive Magistrate,

cum District Revenue Officer,

Coimbatore.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

State Bank of India Road,

Coimbatore.

3.Govindaraj

4.B.Balabhuvaneswari

5.P.A.Janarthanan

... Respondents

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to

e/f/5082/12 ,1 dated 09.04.2012 from the first respondent and

quash the same, which confirms the order dated 08.02.2012 in

g/K/4308/2011 m/1 passed by the second respondent and direct the

second respondent to restore the entries made in the registers

maintained in this regard in respect of the properties under

issues relating to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sabarish

For Mr.S.Kigston Jerold

For Respondents

For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Neelakandan

Government Advocate.

For R3 to R5 : No appearance

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the

records pertaining to e/f/5082/12 ,1 dated 09.04.2012 from the

first respondent and quash the same, which confirms the order

dated 08.02.2012 in g/K/4308/2011 m/1 passed by the second

respondent and direct the second respondent to restore the

entries made in the registers maintained in this regard in

respect of the properties under issues relating to the

petitioner.

2.

According to the petitioner, he is an absolute owner of

the properties comprised in Ka.Sa.No.62/1A, 632A1 64/2, 66/2,

65/2 and 65/3A, situated in Pattanam Village covering an extent

of 7.76 acres of dry lands by virtue of sale deed Nos.757/2005

and 3464/2007 dated 14.02.2005 and 03.04.2007 respectively

registered with Sub Registrar, Singanallur, Coimbatore District.

The third respondent filed petition before the second respondent

as against the petitioner and the respondents 4 & 5, claiming

share in Ka.Sa.No.62/1, 65 and 66 situated in Pattanam Village,

on the ground that the petitioner purchased the properties in an

unlawful manner by committing an act of fraud and consequently

prayed to take action as against the respondents 4 & 5 and the

petitioner. After conducting enquiry, the second respondent

passed an order that the sale deed executed by the respondents 4

& 5 is not valid and cancelled the document entries made in the

register. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision

before the first respondent. The said revision petition also

dismissed by an order dated 09.04.2012. Further the case of the

petitioner is that, he is a bonafide purchaser for consideration

and without knowing that in respect of the very same properties,

already civil disputes are pending between the respondents 3 to

5 in S.A.No.1741 of 2001 and the petitioner got himself

impleaded in the said Second Appeal pending before this Court.

Therefore, he filed this present Writ Petition with the above

said prayer.

3.

Heard Mr.S.Sabarish, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.

4.

The disputed properties originally belonged to one

Palanisamy Naidu and he executed Will in respect of the disputed

properties in favour his second wife Ranganayaki ammal and his

three sons born through her viz., Govindaraju, Jeganathan and

Balasundaram. The said Govindaraju and the wife of Balasundaram

are the respondents 3 & 4 herein. According to the Will, his

second wife Ranganayaki ammal and his three sons are entitled to

have ¼ share in the entire properties belonged to the said

Palanisamy Naidu. While the said Ranganayaki ammal wa

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top