Thangaswamy. Sk v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN S.K.Thangaswamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, O/o.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, G.H.Road, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registrar, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Branch Manager, Central Co-operative Bank, Uchippuli Branch, Ramanathapuram District.

5.T.Kannan ... Respondents 1/5

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 herein to cancel the settlement deed in vide Document No. 1030/2010, which is executed by the petitioner in favour of fifth respondent who is the petitioners son, before the 3rd Office, consequentially direct the fourth respondent not to handed over the settlement deed in vide Document No. 1030/2010, which is mortgaged by the fifth respondent / petitioner's son, without petitioner's knowledge by considering petitioner's representations dated 08.03.2023, 21.11.2023 and 17.03.2023, in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3 Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi for R.4

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. The fifth respondent could not be served. He appears to have left for Malaysia.

2/5

2.The petitioner is none other than the father of the fifth respondent. The petitioner had executed settlement deed in favour of his son / fifth respondent. The fifth respondent had mortgaged the property and without clearing the loan he had left India. The property was about to be brought to auction. It was the petitioner who cleared the mortgage liability. The mortgagee returned the document to the fifth respondent. Once again the fifth respondent mortgaged the property with the fourth respondent for a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs. He did not repay the loan. The property was brought to auction. At this stage, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs. The petitioner is a senior citizen. He states that he has no other place to stay. His apprehension is that if once again the document is returned to his son, he will once again mortgage the property and the petitioner will be left homeless.

3.Taking into account the special facts and circumstances of the case, the fourth respondent is directed to return the document to the petitioner herein. I grant this relief because it is the petitioner who had so for paid a sum of Rs.16,16,170/-.

3/5

4.This writ petition is allowed on these terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

04.07.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To 1.The District Collector, O/o.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, G.H.Road, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registrar, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram District.

4/5

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

MGA 04.07.2024 5/5