Allowed

B.Appakutty v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Sept 2024WP/16979/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition challenging an order cancelling a land patta. Relying on a Division Bench judgment striking down Section 77A of the Registration Act, the court set aside the consequent reversion of the patta to the petitioner, maintaining a status quo pending a civil suit on title.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.05.2024 is set aside; the petitioner is entitled to the prayers in the W.P.; status quo of revenue records is maintained pending the civil suit.

B.Appakutty Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.16979 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.18705 of 2024

B.Appakutty

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Krishnagiri – 635115

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate

¶13

Krishnagiri – 635115

¶14

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Krishnagiri – 635115

¶15

4.The Tahsildar, Bargur, Krishnagiri District

¶16

5.Raja ... Respondents

¶17

1/11

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records of the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the 3 rd Respondent bearing number P.M.3761/2023/A and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently the 4 th Respondent to restore the Patta Nos.3701 and 3702 in the name of the Petitioner.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mrs.Rohini Ravikumar

¶22

For R1 to R4 : Mr.Arasakumar Government Advocate

¶23

For R5 : Mr.M.Suresh

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 3^rd respondent cancelling patta issued in the name of petitioner on the ground that Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner dated 22.08.2016 was cancelled by District Registrar, Thirupattur District, by his order dated 18.04.2023 while exercising power under Section 77A of Registration Act, 1908.

¶26

2/11

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶29

According to the petitioner, the subject property originally belonged to one Venkatammal and she having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 09.03.1970. The said Venkatammal executed a Will dated 22.02.1953 in faovur of her daughter-in-law Kuruvammal. Subsequently, the said Kuruvammal executed two Settlement Deeds dated 23.04.1986 in favour of her son the 5^th respondent herein and her grandson namely Master Srinivasan represented by his mother Shymala. Thus, the subject property was jointly owned by 5^th respondent and his minor son Srinivasan. The 5^th respondent and his minor son Srinivasan represented by his mother Shymala executed a Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2015 appointing one V.Subash as Power Agent to deal with subject property. The petitioner purchased the subject property under a registered Sale Deed dated 22.08.2016 from 5^th respondent and his minor son Srinivasan represented by their Power Agent-V.Subash. Thus, the petitioner herein claims right over the subject property.

¶30

The 5^th respondent herein filed an application before the District Registrar, Thirupattur stating that his son Srinivasan died as early as

¶31

3/11

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶34

16.03.2016, suppressing the same, Sale Deed was executed by Power Agent-V.Subash in favour of the petitioner on 22.08.2016. Therefore, the District Registrar, Thirupattur by exercising his power under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908 cancelled the Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioner by order dated 18.04.2023 mainly on the ground that one of the principals namely Master Srinivasan was not alive on the date of Sale Deed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner said to have filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration and the same is pending. The petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2023 before the District Court, Krishnagiri seeking relief of declaration of the validity of the Sale Deeds and permanent injunction. The petitioner is the 1^st plaintiff in the said suit and the plaintiffs

¶35

2 and 3 therein are the purchasers from the petitioner herein.

¶36

Thereafter, the 5^th respondent filed an application before the 3^rd respondent seeking cancellation of patta issued in the name of petitioner based on the Sale Deed cancelled by the proceedings of District Registrar, Thirupattur. The 3^rd respondent after enquiry by impugned order dated 29.05.2024 cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner mainly on the ground that Sale Deed in favour of petitioner was cancelled by the

¶37

4/11

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶40

District Registrar, Thirupattur in his order dated 18.04.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908 has been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration (W.P.No.10291 of 2022 etc., batch, dated 02.08.2024). Therefore, the order passed by the District Registrar, Thirupattur by invoking Section 77A of Registration Act, will not affect the title of the petitioner.

¶42

The learned counsel further submitted that once the order cancelling the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner is rendered invalid by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the consequential impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent cancelling patta issued in the name of petitioner is also liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner and the persons who purchased the property from petitioners jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2023 before the District Court, Krishnagiri for declaration that Sale Deed dated 22.08.2016 is a valid

¶43

5/11

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶46

document and the same will bind the defendants therein namely 5^th respondent and his wife Shymala and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession and the said suit is pending. The learned counsel further submitted that when the title dispute is pending before the Civil Court, the authorities ought not to have passed the impugned order cancelling the patta in his favour.

¶47

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that when the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by Power Agent-V.Subash, one of his principals minor Srinivasan was not alive. Therefore, the District Registrar, Thirupattur rightly exercising power under Section 77A of the Registration Act, cancelled the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and in such circumstances, the 3^rd respondent was justified in cancelling the patta, which was issued based on the cancelled sale deed.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent would submit

¶49

that the petitioner and Power Agent V.Subash produced bogus life certificate before the Sub-Registrar and got the Sale Deed executed after

¶50

6/11

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶53

death of one of the Principals namely minor son-Srinivasan. Therefore, the Sale in favour of the petitioner is invalid.

¶54

As far as the contention raised by the 5^th respondent that sale in

¶55

favour of the petitioner is invalid is concerned, sale in favour of the petitioner was executed by 5^th respondent and his minor son-Srinivasan represented by their Power Agent-V.Subash. It is not in dispute that minor son-Srinivasan died even prior to execution of Sale Deed. Therefore, the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner can be treated as void only to the extent of share of minor son-Srinivasan and the Sale Deed is perfectly valid as far as the share of 5^th respondent is concerned. Therefore, the District Registrar, Thirupattur ought not to have cancelled the entire Sale Deed on the ground that one of the principals namely minor son-Srinivasan died prior to the execution of Sale Deed. In any event sale in favour of petitioner to the extent of 5^th respondent's share appear to be valid and hence, District Registrar ought not to have cancelled entire sale deed. For the same reason, the impugned order cancelling patta based on District Registrar's order is also erroneous. Even if sale is invalid to the extent of share of deceased, petitioner is entitled to half share of 5^th respondent which was sold to

¶56

7/11

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶59

petitioner under the very same sale deed. Hence, the petitioner becomes a co-owner and entitled to atleast joint patta. Hence, entire patta cannot be cancelled. It is also brought to the notice of this Court the District Registrar by exercising power under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908, cancelled the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶60

The Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel case cited supra, struck down Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908 and hence, any order passed by District Registrar by exercising power under Section 77A is also liable to be set aside.

¶61

Once we come to the conclusion that the order passed by the District Registrar, Thirupattur cancelling the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner is not legally tenable in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above mentioned case law, the impugned consequential order cancelling patta based on the order passed by District Registrar should also be set aside.

¶62

8/11

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶65

Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed in this writ petition. It is also made clear that the petitioner already filed a civil suit for a declaration that Sale Deed dated 22.08.2016 executed in his favour is valid and binding on the 5^th respondent and his wife. It is not in dispute that minor son-Srinivasan died prior to execution of Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶66

The validity or otherwise of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioner is subject matter of the dispute in O.S.No.12 of 2023 on the file of the District Court, Krishnagiri. Till the validity of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioner is decided by the competent Civil Court, the respondents 1 to 4 shall maintain status quo of the revenue records that prevailed prior to the passing of impugned order. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court while disposing of this writ petition will not affect the rights of either the petitioner or the 5^th respondent herein in a pending civil suit. Both the parties are given liberty to workout their remedy in the pending civil litigation.

¶67

9/11

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶70

With this observation, the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent dated 29.05.2024 is set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶71

04.09.2024

¶72

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No dm

¶73

¶74

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Krishnagiri – 635115

¶75

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Krishnagiri – 635115

¶76

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Krishnagiri – 635115

¶77

4.The Tahsildar, Bargur, Krishnagiri District

¶78

10/11

¶79

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

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.16979 of 2024

¶84

04.09.2024

¶85

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

¶86

11/11

B.Appakutty v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Appakutty v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Krishnasamy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Arani Angalamman Temple Vs the Collector

Mr.S.Sivakumar Vs Mr. Balaraman

I.Madhubala Vs the District Collector

G.Kannan Vs the District Collector

S.S.Ravi Vs Mr.Udayakumar