Dismissed

Thiripurasundari v. the Commissioner

Madras HC1 Apr 2022WP(MD)/2028/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash an order directing her to approach the civil court regarding property tax and to direct a name transfer. The petitioner claimed ownership via a settlement deed compounded by a compromise with respondents. The court considered the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.12.2020 quashed and case remitted to respondent to pass appropriate orders within 30 days of compromise.

Thiripurasundari Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2028 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.2028 of 2022

Thiripurasundari

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Commissioner, Tenkasi Municipality, Tenkasi District.

¶9

2.Marimuthu 3.Mariammal 4.Mariappan ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.987/2020/Aa1 dated 31.12.2020 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to transfer the property tax in the name of the petitioner for the property bearing Door number 220/32C, Mathangkoil 1^st street, Chidhambareswarar Koil street, Melapuliyur Village, Tenkasi Municipality, Tenkasi District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For R1 : Mr.P.Athimoola Pandian For R2 to R4 : No appearance

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.987/2020/Aa1 dated 31.12.2020 passed by the 1^st respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to transfer the property tax in the name of the petitioner for the property bearing Door.No.220/32C situated at Mathangkoil 1^st street, Chidhambareswarar Koil street, Melapuliyur Village, Tenkasi Municipality, Tenkasi District.

¶14

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has become the owner of the property by virtue of the settlement deed dated 28.05.2020 executed by her husband, who is the son of late.Thirumalai Naidu. It is further submitted that the aforesaid property was earlier gifted to the petitioner's husband https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the petitioner's father-in-law by a gift deed dated 02.12.1981.

¶15

1/2

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.2028 of 2022

¶17

3.The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 31.12.2020 of the 1^st respondent, whereby the 1^st respondent has asked the petitioner to workout her remedy before the civil Court and thereafter to approach the 1^st respondent for name transfer. Today when the case was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into a compromise with the private respondents herein, namely the respondents 2 to 4.

¶18

4.Considering the same, I am inclined to quash the impugned order of the 1^st respondent dated 31.12.2020 remitting the case back to the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.12.2021 within a period of 30 days from the date of such compromise agreement, which may be filed before the 1^st respondent.

¶19

5.These writ petition stand disposed of, in terms of the above observation. No costs.

¶20

Assistant Registrar ()

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

¶24

To :

¶25

The Commissioner, Tenkasi Municipality, Tenkasi District.

¶26

+1 CC to M/s.R.J.KARTHICK, Advocate (SR-16245[F] dated 04/04/2022)

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.2028 of 2022 01.04.2022

¶28

USK/21.04.2022/2P/3C

¶29

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

¶30

2/2

Thiripurasundari v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiripurasundari v. the Commissioner

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

Thamarai Rajendra Kumar.S Vs the Joint Commissioner

Rajesh Kanna .G Vs The Executive Officer

Vincent Daniel .D Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Jahubar Sathik Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Customs

James Prem Kumar Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Hyder Khan.S Vs the Addl Commissioner of Customs