Dismissed¶34

Karthalingam v. K. Palanisamy

Madras HC8 Oct 2025WA/2996/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.A. No.2996 of 2025 (08.10.2025), S.M.Subramaniam J. and Mohammed Shaffiq J.: writ appeal by third respondent in writ proceedings against order in W.P.No.29002 of 2024 dismissed. Common pathway dispute between joint patta holders; revenue authorities and High Court under Article 226 cannot adjudicate disputed civil-rights facts when civil suit O.S. No.116 of 2024 (Principal District Court, Cuddalore) is pending; exclusive usage claim left to civil court; status quo of joint pathway usage preserved; civil court to decide uninfluenced by High Court observations; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; writ appeal dismissed, connected miscellaneous petition closed, no order as to costs. ¶34

Karthalingam Vs K. Palanisamy — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; writ appeal dismissed, connected miscellaneous petition closed, no order as to costs.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the revenue authorities or the High Court in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution can adjudicate disputed facts relating to civil rights over the common pathway when a civil suit is pending between the parties. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Whenever a dispute relating to a pathway arises and a civil suit is pending between the parties, neither the revenue authorities nor the High Court in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution can adjudicate the disputed facts relating to civil rights; such disputes fall to be decided by the civil court.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to unsettle the pathway currently being used by all three persons; the appellant's claim for exclusive usage of the subject property deserves to be adjudicated in the civil suit, where the other joint pattadhars will defend their case.

¶29

Key takeaways

There is no reason to interfere with the orders of the writ Court, which are in consonance with the principles and based on equity.ratio¶29
The civil Court shall adjudicate the issues independently and uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court on facts, deciding the issues based on the documents and evidences available on record.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the third respondent in the writ proceedings against the order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.No.29002 of 2024, whereby the writ Court found the pathway to be a common pathway and allowed the writ petition. Held: where a dispute relating to a common pathway arises and a civil suit (O.S. No.116 of 2024, Principal District Court, Cuddalore) is pending between the parties, neither the revenue authorities nor the High Court in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution can adjudicate the disputed facts relating to civil rights. The Court declined to unsettle the pathway presently used by all three joint pattadhars and left the appellant's claim for exclusive usage to be decided in the civil suit, directing the civil Court to adjudicate independently and uninfluenced by the High Court's observations on facts. Writ appeal dismissed; connected C.M.P. No.24154 of 2025 closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.A. No.2996 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.A. No.2996 of 2025 and

¶7

C.M.P. No.24154 of 2025

Karthalingam

... Appellant

Vs.

1.K.Palanisamy

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.

¶13

3.The Tahsildar, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶14

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order

¶15

dated 18.12.2024 made in W.P.No.29002 of 2024.

¶16

For Appellant : Ms.G.Selvi George For Respondents : Mr.C.Munusamy for R1 Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader for R2 and R3

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

W.A. No.2996 of 2025

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶22

The writ order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.No.29002 of 2024 is sought to be assailed in the present intra-court appeal instituted by the third respondent in the writ proceedings.

¶23

It is not in dispute between the parties that a joint patta has been initially granted in favour of the appellant, first respondent and yet another person. Thus the joint patta granted by the revenue authorities stood in the name of three persons. The appellant claims exclusive right over the common pathway, which is the subject matter involved in the patta proceedings. The claim of the appellant was considered by the Tahsildar. The other joint patta holders preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer reversed the order of the Tahsildar and cancelled the patta granted in the name of the appellant, since the civil suit has been instituted between the parties in O.S. No.116 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore.

¶24

The dispute regarding usage of common pathway exist between the parties. Thus, neither revenue authorities nor the High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can adjudicate the disputed facts relating to civil rights.

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

W.A. No.2996 of 2025

¶28

The writ Court has considered the facts and made a finding that it is a common pathway and allowed the writ petition. The finding of the writ Court is that suit in question has been instituted by the appellant herein against the first respondent for declaration and permanent injunction with reference to the property in Survey No.18/1, which is a vacant site together with tiled house. Thus, the pathway in question is not the subject matter. Therefore, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is misconceived and suffers from non-application of mind.

¶29

This Court is of the considered view that whenever dispute relating to pathway arises and a civil suit is pending between the parties, the revenue authorities or the High Court in a writ proceedings cannot adjudicate the disputed issues on merits. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the common pathway is being used by all the three persons having property in the said area. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to unsettle the pathway which is being used by all the three persons as of now. The claim of the appellant for exclusive usage of the subject property deserves to be adjudicated in civil suit. It is for the other joint pattadhars to defend their case in the civil suit. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the writ Court, which is in consonance with the principles and based on equity. The

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

W.A. No.2996 of 2025

¶33

civil Court shall adjudicate the issues independently and uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court on facts and decide the issues based on documents and evidences available on record.

¶34