Disposed

Nanjappa v. The Sub collector

Madras HC3 Dec 2019WP/16325/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras issued a direction to the Sub-Collector to conduct an inquiry into the registration of settlement deeds involving two individuals named Nanjappa. The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought to address the cloud cast on the petitioner's title due to a deed allegedly executed by impersonators. The directed inquiry required comparing thumb impressions an

What did the court decide?

A direction to the Sub-Collector to conduct an inquiry involving comparison of thumb impressions, issue of notices to parties, and preparation of a comprehensive report on the authenticity of the sett

Nanjappa Vs The Sub collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.12.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

W.P.No.16325 of 2018

Nanjappa

... Petitioner

The Sub-Collector

¶10

Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶11

The Sub Registrar Thenkanikotti Sub Registrar Office Krishnagiri District.

¶12

Nanjappa

¶13

Subramani ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to cancel the settlement deed dated 30.06.2008 in Doc.No. 2943/2008 by considering the petitioner representation dated 19.10.2017.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. MA.P.Thangavel

¶16

For RR 1 & 2 : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi Additional Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Petitioner is Nanjappa, son of Late Narayanappa, resident at D.Barandur Village, Mugalur Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The third respondent is also Nanjappa, son of Chinna Kulle Gowda and also resident of D.Barandur Village, Mugalur Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶19

Among the lands possessed by the petitioner, S.No. 575/2C measuring 0.10.0 hectares is also one of the lands. Chitta has been granted by the Village Administrative Officer in his favour. However, taking advantage of the similarity in name, it is alleged that the third respondent Nanjappa had executed a settlement deed of the said lands in Document No. 2943 of 2008 on 30.06.2008. Not to be left with it, the petitioner herein, who is the actual owner of the said lands https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

had, in his turn, also executed a settlement deed in favour of his own wife, Rukumaniammal, on 31.10.2008 which was also registered as Document No. 4699 of 2008. Both the documents were registered by the second respondent, Sub Registrar, Thenkanikottai, Sub-Registrar Office, Krishnagiri District.

¶21

Obviously, the registration of the settlement deed on 30.06.2008 has created a cloud over the title of the property of the petitioner. Consequently, he had given a representation on 19.10.2017 to the respondents asking them to conduct an enquiry in this regard. There has been no response from the respondents which forced him to file a present Writ Petition seeking direction in the nature of Mandamus.

¶22

Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶23

A direction is issued to the first respondent, namely, The Sub-Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, on the following:-

¶24

(i) To enquire the basis on which the settlement deed in Document no. 2943 of 2008 dated 30.06.2008 was registered by the Sub Registrar, Thenkanikottai, The Sub Registrar Office, when allegedly the said Nanjappa was not the true owner of the lands;

¶25

(ii) To enquire the circumstances surrounding settlement deed in Document No. 4699 of 2008 dated 31.10.2008 which is said to have been executed by the actual owner of the property also called Nanjappa;

¶26

(iii) The Sub Collector may also take the assistance of any other expert if he so requires to compare the thumb impression of both the said individuals of the same name Nanjappa in both the documents and also in the registry retained by the Sub Registrar Office to determine as to whether the present petitioner, who is the actual owner, had executed the settlement deed on 30.06.2008 or whether he was impersonated by the third respondent and a fraudulent settlement deed was so executed; and

¶27

(iv) This process naturally requires the first respondent to issue notice to not only the Sub Registrar, Thenkanikottai, Sub Registrar Office and call for the necessary records, but also seek the appearance of both the petitioner Nanjappa, son of Late Narayanappa and also the third respondent, Nanjappa, son of Chinna Kulle Gowda and the fourth respondent, Subramani, son of Nanjappa.

¶28

Sufficient opportunity may be granted to them to put forth their views and also produce documents to prove their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

identity and also their pre-existing right or title over the property, namely, S.No. 575/2C, for which chitta has been issued in favour of the petitioner, Nanjappa, son of Late Narayanappa.

¶30

A comprehensive report may be prepared by the Sub Collector and at any rate Sub Collector may devote personal attention to finalising the said report taking into account the fact that the petitioner herein is aged about 80 years, the said report may be finalised after giving opportunity to all the parties as stated above on or before 31.03.2020.

¶31

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶32

of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

The Sub-Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶39

The Sub Registrar, Thenkanikotti Sub Registrar Office, Krishnagiri District.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, Advocate Sr.100650

¶41

W.P.No.16325 of 2018

¶42

kk[co] srg 26/12/2019

¶43

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

Nanjappa v. The Sub collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanjappa v. The Sub collector

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

M.S. Ahamed Rizwan Vs The Zonal Manager

Sudhakaran,S/o.Sekaran Vs The Regional Passport officer

V.Senthamaraikannan Vs The Commissioner

Punniyavathi Vs The Secretary to the Governmen

Gnanammal, Vs The Inspector General of

Mint Modern City Welfare Vs Jamiah Qasmiyah Trust