Chidambaranathan v. Ramayee
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.8403 and 6552 of 2025 C.R.P.(MD).No.1621 of 2025 Chidambaranathan
...Petitioner
Cause title is accepted vide Court order Dated 04.06.2025 made in C.M.P. (MD).No.8061 of 2025 in CRP.(MD).SR.No.40908 of 2025 Vs.
1.Ramayee 2.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Revenue Tahsidar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to struck off the plaint in O.S.No.39 of 2024 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Marimuthu For R-1 : Mr.N.Anandhakumar 1/7
For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, Government Advocate C.R.P.(MD).No.1242 of 2025 Chidambaranathan
...Petitioner
Vs.
Gobi
...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to struck off the plaint in O.S.No.69 of 2024 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.N.Anandhakumar * * * * * COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed seeking orders to struck off the plaint in O.S.Nos.39 and 69 of 2024 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
2/7
2. The first respondent, viz., Ramayee in CRP.(PD).(MD).No.1621 of 2025 filed a suit in O.S.No.39 of 2024 before the learned District Munsif, Keeranur seeking monetary injunction against the District Collector, Pudukkotti District and the Revenue Tahsilar, Kulathur Taluk. The respondent in C.R.P. (PD).(MD).No.1242 of 2025 filed a suit in O.S.No.69 of 2024 restraining the petitioner namely, Chidambaranathan from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property in Survey No.782/2 to an extent of 1.260 Hectares in Mandaiyur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District. Initially, the property was owned by one V. Subramanian, who died intestate on 27.06.1984. His legal heir, V.K. Vaiyauri, S/o V.Kandasamy Panankondar, sold the property to the petitioner vide Document No.1508 of 1979, dated 01.11.1979. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Meanwhile, the first respondent in C.R.P. (PD)(MD).No.1621 of 2025 filed a suit in O.S.No.1 of 2020 before the learned District Munsif Court, Keeranur, seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the very same property in Survey No.782/2, measuring 1.26 Hectares. However, the said suit was withdrawn on 14.10.2022. Subsequently, the same first respondent filed another suit in O.S.No.39 of 2024 on the file of 3/7
the District Munsif Court, Keeranur, seeking monetary injunction, by impleading the District Collector, Pudukkottai, and the Revenue Tahsildar, Kulathur, as parties, but without impleading the petitioner herein. In addition to that, another respondent, viz., Gobi, in C.R.P.(MD).No.1242 of 2025, filed a suit in O.S.No.69 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur, seeking the very same relief, against the petitioner herein.
4. Apart from these two cases, the very same respondent, Gobi, earlier filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.19851 of 2023 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to issue a patta in his favour based on a registered sale deed bearing Document No.5301 of 2023, relating to the property situated in Pudukkottai District, Kulathur Taluk, Mandaiyur Village, in Survey No.782/2, classified as punja land, measuring 1.26.0 hectares, based on his representation dated 24.07.2023. In the said writ petition, he further alleged that the petitioner and his mother are the legal heirs of V. Subramanian.
However, the respondent and his mother had created forged documents, including a fabricated death certificate, legal heirship certificate, and sale deed, and approached the revenue authorities for issuance of patta based on those documents. Thereafter, the petitioner has been impleaded as third respondent in the above said Writ Petition. The petitioner approached the local body and Revenue Department to verify the genuineness of death and legal heir certificate of the said V.Subramanian.
documents were verified and found to be forged and fabricated. Since the respondent viz., Gobi had not approached the Court with clean hands, the Writ Petition was dismissed with costs on 30.08.2023. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner to strike off the plaints in O.S.Nos.39 and 69 of 2024.
5. The learned Government Advocate did not dispute the factual submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents, namely, Gobi and Ramayee has reported 'no instructions'.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the respondent in C.R.P.(PD).(MD).No.1242 of 2025 and the first respondent in C.R.P.(PD).(MD).No.1621 of 2025 have repeatedly initiated proceedings in respect of the same property in Survey No.782/2, despite earlier suits being withdrawn or dismissed. Particularly, the attempt to obtain patta on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, as confirmed by the Revenue Authorities and the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.19851 of 2023 with costs, clearly indicates an abuse of process of law. 5/7
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1621 of 2025 and C.R.P.(MD).No.1242 of 2025 are allowed, and the plaints in O.S.No.39 of 2024 and O.S.No.69 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur, are struck off. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.06.2025 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No TSG To 1.The District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
M.DHANDAPANI , J.
TSG 19.06.2025 7/7