C.R.P(PD).No.2329 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.08.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

C.R.P.(PD).No.2329 of 2022

and C.M.P.No.11959 of 2022

Devaki

W/o.Chandrasekar

...Petitioner

..Vs.

1.C.Neepha

2.The Tahsildar,

Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Ranipet, Vellore District.

4.The District Revenue Officer,

Ranipet, Ranipet District.

5.The Collector, Ranipet District.

6.The Village Administrative Officer,

Kainoor Village, Arakkonam Taluk Office,

Ranipet District.

7.The Head Surveyor, Arakkonam Taluk Office,

Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(PD).No.2329 of 2022

8.The Sub Registrar II, Arakkonam SR Office,

Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

9.The Inspector General of Registration,

Santhome, Chennai.

10.Rajavalliammal

..Respondents

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, against the decreetal order dated 11.04.2022 made

in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.137 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court,

Arakkonam.

For Petitioners

: Mr.N.Sivaprakash

For Respondents

: Mr.E.Vijayanand for R2 to R9

Additional Government Pleader.

No appearance for R1 & R10

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the

order dated 11.04.2022 made in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.137 of 2020

on the file of the Sub Court, Arakkonam.

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(PD).No.2329 of 2022

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 9 and perused

the entire materials available on record.

3.The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who has filed the suit in

O.S.No.137 of 2020 for the relief of declaration and permanent

injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has filed an

interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking certain amendments

and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of

amendment, the plaintiff wanted to include two more prayers, which he

omitted to include while he filed the application; the amendment will not

in any way change the nature of the suit and prayers can only be

consequential and hence, the order of the learned trial Judge may be

reversed.

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(PD).No.2329 of 2022

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents 2 to 9 submitted that being the Government Authorities, they

have to abide by the order of the Court, since the plaintiff has filed a suit

for declaration in respect of the settlement deeds dated 25.06.2007 and

18.10.1990 and the findings of the learned trial Judge on these settlement

deed will determine the title of the parties and only in accordance with the

judgment, the Government defendants can mutate or not to mutate the

Revenue Records.

6.The records would show that the amendment was sought to

include the following two reliefs:

(i)Declaration that the entry in Patta No.346, made

by the Revenue Officials jointly in the name of the first

respondent/first defendant and 10^th

respondent/10^th

defendant as null and void and not binding on the suit

schedule property.

4/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(PD).No.2329 of 2022

(ii)Mandatory injunction, directing the respondents 2

to 7/defendants 2 to 7 to incorporate name of the petitioner/

plaintiff in the Patta, in respect of the suit schedule

property.

7.The suit itself has been filed for declaring the title of the plaintiff

in pursuance of the settlement deed dated 25.06.2007 and to declare

another settlement deed dated 18.10.1990 as null and void. Unless the

Court decides on these settlement deeds, the entitlement of the plaintiff to

mutate the Revenue Records will not arise. Ev