Petitioner challenged non-registration of a gift deed. Court held petition dismissed as prior rejection by Tahsildar remained unchallenged, barring fresh challenge. Connected petitions closed.
Writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs, connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :03.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 to 3 of 2013
1.K.Jagatha (Died)
2.Krishnanmurali
... Petitioners
(P2 is impleaded as LRs, vide Court order dated 15.11.2022 in W.M.P. (MD).No.19192 of 2022 in W.P.(MD).No.11831 of 2013 by RVJ)
Vs.
Page 1 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
5.Mr.T.Baskaran
6.T.Sreenivasan
7.R.Rajeshkumar
8.P.Madan Prakash
... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Ni.Aa.No.91/2011 dated 31.05.2011 and the consequential impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.A1/6909/11 dated 31.07.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register and release the gift deed 30.05.2011 executed by the petitioner in favour of her son, pending as document No.91/2011 on the file of the 3rd respondent within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.E.Marees Kumar For Respondents :Mr.V.Om.Prakash Government Advocate for R1, R2 & R4 :Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R3 :Mr.V.Balaji for R5 to R8
Page 2 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the communications of the third respondent, dated 31.05.2011 and the second respondent dated 31.07.2012 and consequently, to direct the third respondent to register and release the gift deed, dated 30.05.2011, executed by the petitioner in favour of her son, which has been assigned in Document No.91/11.
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
respondent, by the impugned communication, dated 31.07.2012, had stated that the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained, as the patta has been issued in favour of one N.Dharma Raj Devar, based upon the updation of revenue records. Pending this writ petition, the petitioner had died and her son had substituted himself as petitioner in this writ petition.
the order of assignment dated 21.04.1969 has been issued by the Deputy Tahsildar and he had been issued with patta, there had been no notice issued to the petitioner for mutating the revenue records during the registration and therefore, such updation itself is non-est and therefore, sought to set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and direct the third respondent to register the document pending and release the same.
Page 4 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
(MD).Nos.2820 and 4796 of 2012 and this Court, by order, dated 30.07.2012, had directed the second respondent herein to consider and dispose of the pending proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/3563/2011 dated 28.11.2011, sent by the fourth respondent herein. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the second respondent herein had conducted an enquiry, after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned. The petitioner had appeared before the second respondent representing the original petitioner and orders were passed on 22.05.2013. The said order of the second respondent has not been challenged. But, however, subsequent to the orders passed by the second respondent, suppressing the same, the petitioner had approached this Court with an innocuous prayer, to re-open the entire issue. He would further submit that one L.P.Krishnan, who is the husband of the deceased petitioner, was working as a Revenue Inspector for Mangalam firka, in the year 1968 and 1969 at Enjar Village, which comes within the Mangalam firka, by abusing his position, the order of assignment has been fraudulently made. The petitioner had not produced any document to substantiate her possession of the property and has only been relying upon the order of assignment, which could not have been made. Further, when
Page 5 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
updation of revenue registers were made, there was no claim made by the petitioner. When that be so, she does not hold the title of the property. By executing the alleged gift deed, the petitioner is trying to create a title to the property.
Page 6 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
of the respondents 6 to 8 and the revenue records have also been mutated in
their names. None of these proceedings have been challenged by the petitioner, knowing fully well that the alleged assignment is a fraudulent assignment. Therefore, he would request this Court not to entertain this petition.
W/o.Krishnan , seeking for the following relief:
“.. to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Ni.Aa.No.91/2011 dated 31.05.2011 and the consequential impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.A1/6909/11 dated 31.07.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the third respondent to register and release the gift deed dated 30.05.2011 executed by the petitioner in favour of her son pending as document No.91/2011 on the file of the 3rd respondent.”
Page 7 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
Page 8 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
by the beneficiary of the gift deed, namely, newly impleaded petitioner. On the demise of the original petitioner, this order of the second respondent had
Page 9 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
not been challenged either by the original petitioner or by the impleaded petitioner. The present petitioner cannot feign ignorance of such order passed by the second respondent. When such an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for registration dated 22.05.2013, has not been challenged, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition to set aside the earlier orders, dated 31.05.2011 and 31.07.2011 passed by the respondents 3 and 4, which have been confirmed by the second respondent in his order, dated 22.05.2013, cannot be entertained. The orders of the second, third and fourth respondents have merged with the order of the second respondent. Hence, I find no merit in this writ petition.
03.01.2023
Index : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order sbn
Page 10 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
To
Page 11 of 12
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
sbn
W.P.(MD)No.11831 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 to 3 of 2013
03.01.2023
Page 12 of 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to entertain a writ petition seeking registration of a gift deed when the claim was previously rejected by an enquiry officer and remained unchallenged.
Krishnanmurali (Substituted for K. Jagatha)
The District Collector
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Sub Registrar
The Tahsildar
K. KUMARESH BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
