6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. It is the fourth respondent, who sought to upset the original status quo. In other words, the revenue record that was standing in the name of the writ petitioner was sought to be impeached by the fourth respondent. According to the fourth respondent, she purchased an extent of 4312 Sq. Ft. (9.88 cents) by way of registered document No.2522/2002 dated 08.08.2002 in old Survey No.23 with specific boundaries. Thereafter, she came to know about the patta granted in favour of the writ petitioner. That is why, she was led to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi. No doubt, the fourth respondent has a claim to make. The question that arises for my consideration is whether the third respondent could have entertained the claim of the fourth respondent. The issue is no longer res integra . The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision reported 2011 (5) CTC 94 (Viswas Footwear Company Ltd., Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram) has authoritatively laid down that the Revenue Authority ought not to go into disputed issue of title. More than anything else, in the case on hand, the writ petitioner is armed with a decree dated 05.02.2002 in O.S.No.10 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sattur. Of course, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, it is an ex parte decree. I also felt that the judgment is virtually non-speaking and does not satisfy the parameters laid in Civil Procedure Code. But on that score, it would not be open to this Court to ignore a subsisting decree. The fourth respondent has not taken any step to have the said decree vacated or set aside. Therefore, this Court is bound to give effect to the said decree. When the father of the fourth respondent had already suffered a decree and when disputed issue of title and possession have been thrown up for consideration, the revenue authorities ought to have relegated the fourth respondent to go before the jurisdictional Civil Court. Nothing stopped the fourth respondent from filing a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction or declaration and recovery of possession, as the case may be. She has not done so. Instead the fourth respondent sought to short circuit the process by knocking the doors of the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities were wholly incompetent to decide the claim raised by the fourth respondent. Since the very competence and jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority is under question, I am justified in interfering with the orders impugned in the writ petition. Accordingly, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned orders are set aside. I make it clear that the order
