Disposed

D. Santhakumari v. The Tahsildar Poonamallee

Madras HC20 Apr 2016WP/13817/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed respondents to consider a fresh representation from the petitioner regarding disputed immovable properties. The authorities were ordered to conduct an inquiry by issuing notices to relevant parties within eight weeks and dispose of the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation within two weeks. Respondents directed to conduct inquiry and dispose of matter within eight weeks.

D. Santhakumari Vs The Tahsildar Poonamallee — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.13817 of 2016

¶6

D.Santhakumari ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
2.The Village Administrative officer,
No.21, Nadukuthagai Village,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruninravur, Tiruvallur District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Nadukuthagai Village Panchayat,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruninravur,
Tiruvallur District.
5.The Deputy Director,
Town & Country Planning Development,
Tiruvallur. ... Respondents
Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 07.10.2015 within a stipulated time to be fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan,
SGP

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 07.10.2015 within a stipulated time to be fixed by this Court.

¶10

The case of the petitioner, as per the averments made in the writ petition, is as follows:

¶11

2.1 The petitioner is the absolute owner of the immovable properties comprised in Survey Nos.132/3C, 150/1B & 147/2B1 (bearing Plot Nos.1, 2, 3 & 7) situated in No.21, Nadukuthagai Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District measuring to an extent of 46 cents, 32 cents and 8951 sq.ft. respectively, by way of settlement deeds dated 29.04.2010 and 04.10.2010 registered as Document Nos.4496/2010 and 9798/2010 respectively, on the file of the third respondent herein. The said settlement deeds were executed in favour of her by her husband Sekar @ Deenadayalan.

¶12

2.2 The petitioner's husband Sekar @ Deenadayalan was the adoptive son of one Munusamy Naidu, who is none other than the elder brother of his natural father Jayaram Naidu. The said Munusamy Naidu had no issues and died in the year 1970 and his wife Jayammal also died on 08.08.1975. Thus, the petitioner's husband became the sole surviving legal heir of his adoptive parents.

¶13

2.3 Originally, the above said immovable properties had been purchased by the said Munusamy Naidu by way of two registered sale deeds dated 12.02.1958 and dated 15.02.1957 bearing Document Nos.314/1958 and 413/1957 respectively, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Poonamallee from one Rajam Naidu. After the demise of the said Munusamy Naidu and his wife Jayammal, the properties in question were succeeded by their adoptive son Sekar @ Deenadayalan, from whom, the petitioner has acquired the said properties by way of settlement deeds.

¶14

2.4 In the mean while, the Revenue department had issued patta bearing No.93 in the name of Rajam Naidu. Subsequently, mutation had been effected in the revenue records pertaining to the properties in question in the name of the said Munusamy Naidu, Jayammal and thereafter, in the name of the petitioner's husband Sekar @ Deenadayalan. Further, Patta bearing No.1648, Chitta and Adangal for fasli 1419 have been

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

issued in the name of the petitioner's husband. However, the application of the petitioner seeking mutation in the revenue records in her favour is pending consideration with respondents 1 and 2.

¶17

2.5 In such circumstances, some third parties projecting them as the relatives of the petitioner's husband's adoptive mother, had claimed right over the properties in question and other properties belonging to her husband by creating concocted documents among themselves. Therefore, the petitioner's husband had filed a suit in O.S.No.6 of 1984 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. After due contest, the said suit was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 15.04.2009 holding that all the documents created by the defendants therein were sham and nominal, bogus and null and void and therefore, the defendants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the aforesaid properties within one month from the date of judgment to her husband. Challenging the same, A.S.No.7/2010 was filed, which was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Sub Court, Poonamallee.

¶18

2.6 Inspite of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner's husband, the defendants have illegally attempted to usurp the said properties and to prevent the petitioner from enjoying the same. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 07.10.2015 to the respondents requesting (i)not to mutate any records; (ii)not to register any document of whatsoever nature; (iii)not to grant any permission/approval; and (iv)not to prove/install any amenities in respect of the immovable properties in question, in favour of any other person, without prior notice to the petitioner. Along with the said representation, she has enclosed all the necessary documents in support of her claim. However, till date, no action has been taken by the respondents in whatsoever manner.

¶19

2.7 Now, the petitioner came to understand that some sale deeds have been presented for registration to the third respondent and the same are pending consideration. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition for the above stated relief.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court permits the petitioner to submit a fresh representation enclosing all the necessary documents including the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2009 made in O.S.No.6 of 1984 along with a copy of this order to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

order. On submitting such representation, the respondents are directed to conduct enquiry by issuing notice to the petitioner as well as to all the necessary parties, particularly, the defendants in O.S.No.6 of 1984 and dispose of the same, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and it is for the respondents to pass appropriate orders purely on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the defendants in O.S.No.6/1984.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
2.The Village Administrative officer,
No.21, Nadukuthagai Village,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruninravur, Tiruvallur District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Avadi,
Chennai 600 054.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Nadukuthagai Village Panchayat,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruninravur, Tiruvallur District.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

5.The Deputy Director,

¶27

Town & Country Planning Development, Tiruvallur.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizhal, Advocate, S.R.No.24700 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.24587

¶29

W.P.No.13817 of 2016
bvr(CO)
srg(28/04/2016)

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

D. Santhakumari v. The Tahsildar Poonamallee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Santhakumari v. The Tahsildar Poonamallee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R. Velayudham Vs The Principal Secretary and

D.Madhusundhan,S/o.D.Narahari, Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police

Mrs.M.Kamatchi Vs `Mr.Gladen Joshna

Kannan Vs The Tahsildar

Sify Technologies Ltd. Vs Union of India, Ministry of

V Ramadurai Vs M Palanisamy