Dismissed

Sarasu v. R.Kamalam

Madras HC11 Oct 2023WA/2745/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by Sarasu against the Tamil Nadu High Court pass given over a Low Court order which League had found the subject matter was sub-city before a civil court. Disposing with the appeal per incuriam, no observation as to costs was not made in the order. The handbook stays with below par order otherwise passed against the Commonwealth law of special cases.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly; no order as to costs.

Sarasu Vs R.Kamalam — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.No.2745 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.10.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.A.No.2745 of 2023

Sarasu

.. Appellant

1.R.Kamalam

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District.

¶14

3.The Presiding Officer, Tribunal for Special Cases and Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam Division, Ariyalur District.

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.324 of 2022.

¶17

For the Appellant : Mr.A.Kumar

¶18

For the Respondents : Mr.S.Kamadevan for respondent No.1

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.A.No.2745 of 2023

¶22

: Mr.P.Muthukumar

¶23

State Government Pleader assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha Spl. Government Pleader for respondent No.2

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶26

We have heard Mr.A.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the first respondent; and, Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

¶27

The appellant was original third respondent in a writ petition filed by the first respondent bearing W.P.No.324 of 2022.

¶28

The present first respondent/original writ petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Tribunal for Special Cases and the Revenue Divisional Officer. The third

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.A.No.2745 of 2023

¶32

respondent had cancelled the settlement deed executed between the present appellant and the first respondent.

¶33

According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge did not consider the case put forth by the appellant before the third respondent. The third respondent had considered the case of both the parties and passed the order.

¶34

According to learned counsel for the first respondent, the settlement deed is of the year 2002. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act came in the year 2007. The said Act did not have retrospective effect.

¶35

The learned Single Judge has observed the present appellant has already filed O.S.No.105 of 2020 before the Sub Court, Ariyalur, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed and that the subject matter is sub judice before the civil court. The learned Single Judge further observed that the order passed by him shall not preclude the civil court from examining the settlement deed, the

¶36

Page 3 of 6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.A.No.2745 of 2023

¶39

cancellation of the settlement deed and other subsequent transactions on the property in accordance with the evidence produced before the civil court. It is also observed that the parties should be granted full opportunity to produce necessary oral and documentary evidence.

¶40

In view of the pendency of the suit before the civil court and the observations made by the learned Single Judge, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties.

¶41

The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

¶42

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 11.10.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶43

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.A.No.2745 of 2023

¶46

To:

¶47

1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District.

¶48

2.The Presiding Officer,

¶49

Tribunal for Special Cases and Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam Division, Ariyalur District.

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.A.No.2745 of 2023

¶53

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

(sasi)

W.A.No.2745 of 2023

11.10.2023

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sarasu v. R.Kamalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarasu v. R.Kamalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sampath Vs The District Collector

V.Rajalakshmi Vs Monicca Shantha Nelson

B.Mathivannan Vs The Chairman

R.Prakash Vs Hdfc Bank

M.Gopal Vs State

Y.Akbar Ahmed, Vs The Registrar of Cooperative