Ponraj v. Murugesan

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and C.M.P(MD)No.14404 of 2025 Ponraj ... Appellant/4th Respondent Vs.

1.Murugesan ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.The Tahsildar, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Surveyor, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Nilakottai Police Station, Dindigul District.

... Respondents 2 to 4/ Respondents 1 to 3 1/6

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.13384 of 2025 dated 18.06.2025 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader For R - 4 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) W.P(MD)No.13384 of 2025 has been filed by R1 in Appeal. The prayer was for a Mandamus directing the Tahsildar and the Surveyor of Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District to conduct a survey and demarcate four boundaries in respect of the property in Survey No.263 6C situated at Kullalakundu, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District (property/properties) and to issue a survey report.

2.The appellant would point out that the Writ Petition was filed only against the official respondents. The present appellant, who is the 2/6

brother of the writ petitioner and is asserting a rival claim over the property, later got himself impleaded as R4 in the Writ Petition. 3.Be that as it may, the Writ Petition was disposed of, incidentally without any counters by any of the respondents. However, the learned Judge has had the benefit of hearing the submissions of the appellant as well as R1. In conclusion, she has disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Tahsildar to conduct a survey and demarcate the boundaries of the property and fixing the time line to do so. 4.Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would raise certain apprehensions in the averments contained in the affidavit. This submission hardly merits consideration, as we are only concerned with the conclusions of the learned Judge in the impugned order with which we are in agreement.

5.Further, O.S.No.549 of 2025 has been filed by one Jeyalakshmi, stated to be the sister of the appellant, on the file of the Sub 3/6

Court, seeking partition of the family properties and other connected prayers. The question of title and ownership, including that of the present property, will hence be decided in the said suit. Let the exercise of survey and demarcation be conducted, after issuance of notice to the appellant and R1 and in their presence.

5.With the above observations, this Writ Appeal is dismissed confirming the directions issued by the learned Judge. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 01.09.2025 NCC :Yes Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ps 4/6

To 1.The Tahsildar, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

2.The Surveyor, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Nilakottai Police Station, Dindigul District.

5/6

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

ps 01.09.2025 6/6