S.Kurungudi v. The Appellate Authority Cum
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 S.Kurungudi ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The Appellate Authority cum Sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
3.S.Mangai Ammal 4.S.Srinivasachari 5.Banumathy 6.Andal Ramakrishna 7.Kausalya Iyegar 1/8
8.N.S.Sundharanrajan 9.Usha Raman 10.N.S.Radhakrishnan (R4 to R10 have been impleaded vide order dated 22.08.2023) ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in Ni.Mu.835/2014(A1) dated 04.09.15 signed on 21.09.15 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Udayakumar for Mr.H.Arumugam For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate For R3, R4, R9 & R10 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For R5 to R8 : No appearance
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent in Ni.Mu.835/2014(A1) dated 04.09.2015 signed on 21.09.2015.
2/8
2.The genealogy of the petitioner is as follows: 3.The case of the petitioner is that the Nanja lands situate in S.No.190/2, measuring an extent of 0.15.5 hectare (38 cents) at Nanguneri Village, Nanguneri Taluk, belonged to one Chinnu Ammal under a family partition of the year 1913. After her demise, the property was allotted to her daughter, Lakshmi Ammal, who enjoyed the same during her life time and she had died leaving behind her husband and son Srinivasan/the petitioner's husband. The revenue records, like 'A' Register, patta and chitta stood in his name. 3/8
4.The third respondent had approached the second respondent for transfer of patta in her name and had produced 'No Objection' in the form of an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner and her daughters and on the basis of this affidavit, the second respondent without notice has transferred the patta in the name of the third respondent.
5.On coming to know about the same, the petitioner and others had given an application to the second respondent and the patta granted in the name of the third respondent was cancelled and was restored in the name of the petitioner's husband.
6.The petitioner would submit that after the cancellation of the patta, her daughters had relinquished their shares in her favour and she had also sold the property to one Pappa Rajendran under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.2013. While so, the third respondent had filed an appeal before the first respondent and by the impugned order, the first respondent had directed inclusion of the name of the third respondent along with the petitioner and it is this order, that is the subject matter of challenge.
4/8
7.The third respondent has filed a counter, in which she had stated that Chinnu Ammal had a daughter, Thiruvengadammal and Lakshmiammal is one of the daughters of Thiruvengadathammal and besides her, there were two other daughters. Srinivasan was the son of the said Lakshmiammal and the third respondent is the daughter of Thiruvengadathammal second daughter of Thiruvengadammal.
8.It is also the contention of the third respondent that during their life time, Lakshmiammal and the other sister, Aalwarammal had orally released their shares in favour of the third respondent's mother and therefore, the entire property was the exclusive property of the third respondent's mother and on her demise, the third respondent had inherited the property.
9.It is the contention that the Revenue Authorities had wrongly included the name of the petitioner's husband in the UDR patta and on noticing the mistake, the third respondent had applied for cancellation of patta and later, it was transferred in her name. The third respondent would submit that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the documents. 5/8
10.Admittedly, the patta originally stood in the name of three daughters as the legal heirs of the original owner of Chinnuammal. Chinnuammal had died intestate leaving behind her surviving only daughter, Thiruvengadammal. Thiruvengadammal had three daughters, namely Lakshmiammal, Thiruvengadathammal and Aazhvarammal. On the death of Thiruvengadammal, all the three of them have got 1/3rd share each in the property in question. 11.The case of the third respondent is that orally, Lakshmiammal and Aazhvarammal have released their respective shares in favour of the third respondent. However, patta had been issued in the exclusive name of Lakshmiammal's son Srinivasan. As to how Srinivasan gets rights to the entire property to the exclusion of the other legal heirs has not been explained. 12.
Be that as it may, there appears to be a conflict with reference to a title to property.
of Thiruvengadammal, namely Lakshmiammal, Thiruvengadathammal and Aazhvarammal as set out in the Genealogy. In case, any one of the legal heirs claim an independent right, the same has to be established through the civil Court. 13.The Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Speaking : Yes / No 12.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm To 1.The Appellate Authority cum Sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
7/8
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm 12.08.2024 8/8