Appeal against Single Judge's direction to approach civil court over exclusion of appellant's name from joint patta. Division Bench held the authority granting unasked relief was perverse and administrative over-reach, restored status quo ante with joint patta, allowing parties to seek civil remedies.
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.A(MD)No.1412 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.04.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE and JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
W.A(MD) No.1412 of 2014 and
M.P(ND)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 Thuravi Govinda Kummaaran, Trustee, Papanasam Kudisai Trust, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs.
4.T.Mariapushpam ....Respondents/Respondents
_________Page 1 of 8
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
W.A(MD)No.1412 of 2014
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.12768 of 2013 dated 30.07.2014.
For Appellant :Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for M/s.D.Nallathambi For R-1 to R-3 :Mr.N.Muthuvijayan, Special Government Pleader For R-4 :Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Seshasayee, J.)
The appellant herein challenges the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.12768 of 2013, dated 30.07.2014.
_________Page 2 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1412 of 2014
_________Page 3 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1412 of 2014
order, dated 04.06.2012, remanded the matter back to the second respondent. Now, the second respondent vide his order, dated 25.06.2013, had excluded the name of the appellant entirely from the joint patta. This order of the second respondent was challenged by the appellant in W.P(MD)No.12768 of 2013.
_________Page 4 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1412 of 2014 essentially because he was not heard by the Tahsildar. But, vide the impugned order, the appellant’s name has been totally excluded from the patta. In other words, the second respondent in its impugned order has granted a relief which nobody has asked for and to that extent the order of the second respondent is perverse.
quo ante that was there prior to the passing of the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 25.06.2013 and to restore the joint patta issued by
_________Page 5 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1412 of 2014
the third respondent vide proceedings, dated 02.12.2010. If any among the parties, namely, the appellant or the fourth respondent is aggrieved, then they have all the rights to approach the civil Court for appropriate remedies. The statement made by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent seems to indicate that there appears to be dispute regarding identity of the property which the fourth respondent and the appellant had purchased. This Court need not remind the parties that issues requiring serious investigation on facts are not the domain of this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 15.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No
PM
_________Page 6 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1412 of 2014
To
N. SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.
PM
W.A.(MD) No.1412 of 2014
Page 7 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1412 of 2014
15.04.2024
Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate authority could exclude the appellant entirely from a joint patta when no party sought his exclusion.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Thuravi Govinda Kummaaran, Trustee, Papanasam Kudisai Trust
The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli
The Appellate Authority cum Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi
The Tahsildhar, Ambasamudram Taluk
T. Mariapushpam
N. Seshasayee
P. Vadamalai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
