Nandghagopal Vs the Tahsildar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nandghagopal Vs the Tahsildar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Full recall of the writ-petition order was not granted; the petition was disposed of with the safeguard that the survey will proceed in line with the order passed in the writ petition and will be subject to the result of the pending suit in O.S.No.131 of 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed in W.P. No.16209 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025 should be recalled, on the ground that it was obtained without adding the petitioner herein (the agreement holder) as a party and behind his back. +1 more

Court's answer

To safeguard the interest of the petitioner herein, the survey will be conducted in line with the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, and it will be subject to the result of the pending suit in O.S.No.131 of 2025.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner claims title over the property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 26.08.2020 (Document No.1941 of 2020) with patta issued in her name; therefore, till the petitioner herein succeeds in his pending suit for specific performance (O.S.No.131 of 2025), he cannot claim a better right than the right of the writ petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Single Judge - N. Anand Venkatesh), WMP No. 34796 of 2025 in WP No. 16209 of 2025, decided 09-09-2025 - Disposed. Nandhagopal, an agreement holder who had contracted with the original owner Krishnaveni, paid an advance of Rs.8,50,000/- and was put into possession, sought recall of the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in WP No. 16209 of 2025 (Tahsildar/survey respondents), alleging it was obtained by the writ petitioner (P.S. Mohana) without impleading him. The Court recorded that the writ petitioner claims title through the registered sale deed dated 26.08.2020 (Document No.1941 of 2020) with patta issued in her name, while the petitioner's own suit for specific performance (O.S.No.131 of 2025, pending before the District Court, Cuddalore, against Krishnaveni) remains unresolved, and held that till he succeeds in that suit he cannot claim a better right than the writ petitioner's right. As a safeguard, the Court directed that the survey be conducted in line with the writ-petition order but remain subject to the result of the pending suit, and disposed of the petition in those terms.

WMP No. 34796 of 2025 in WP No.16209 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

WMP No. 34796 of 2025 IN

WP No. 16209 of 2025

Mr.Nandhagopal S/o Ranganathan No 125, Ayyanar Koil Street, Thattampalayam, Melkumaramangalam Panruti, Cuddalore 607 106

Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Tahsildar Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District-607 106 2.The Head Surveyor Tahsildar Office, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District-607 106

3.P.S.Mohana W/o.Karthikeyan, No.5/15, Anna Street, Kasturibai Nagar, West Tambaram, Kancheepuram-600045

Respondent(s)

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

WMP No. 34796 of 2025 in WP No.16209 of 2025

WP No. 16209 of 2025

P.S.Mohana

W/o.Karthikeyan, No.5/15, Anna Street, Kasturibai Nagar, West Tambaram, Kancheepuram-600045

Vs

The Tahsildar Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District and another

PRAYER

To recall the order passed in W.P. No.16209 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Manimaran

For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Velu Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.V.Janarthanam for R3

ORDER

This petition has been filed to recall the order passed in W.P.No.16209 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025.

Heard the respective learned counsel for the parties.

The main grievance that was expressed by the learned counsel for

petitioner in this petition is that the sale agreement was entered into between the

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

WMP No. 34796 of 2025 in WP No.16209 of 2025

petitioner and the original owner of the property, namely, Krishnaveni and pursuant to this agreement, out of the total sale consideration, advance amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was paid by the petitioner and the petitioner was also put into possession. While so, the original owner has proceeded to execute the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner on 26.08.2020. Hence, a suit for specific performance has been filed in O.S.No.131 of 2025 as against the original owner Krishnaveni and the same is pending before the District Court, Cuddalore. Even though the writ petitioner was aware of this fact, the petitioner herein was not added as a party and the order has been obtained from this Court behind the back of the petitioner. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner herein has sought for recalling the order passed in the writ petition.

In the considered view of this Court, the writ petitioner is claiming her title over the property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 26.08.2020, which was registered as Document No.1941 of 2020. Patta has also been issued in the name of the writ petitioner. The petitioner herein is an agreement holder and he has filed the suit for specific performance against the original owner, which is pending before the competent civil Court. Therefore, till the petitioner herein succeeds in the suit, he cannot claim for better right than that of the right of the writ petitioner.

However, in order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner herein, it is made clear that the survey will be conducted in line with the order passed by

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

WMP No. 34796 of 2025 in WP No.16209 of 2025

this Court in the writ petition and it will be subject to the result in the pending suit in O.S.No.131 of 2025.

This petition is disposed of in the above terms.

09-09-2025

ss

To

1.The Tahsildar Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District-607 106

2.The Head Surveyor Tahsildar Office, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District-607 106

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

WMP No. 34796 of 2025 in WP No.16209 of 2025

N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

ss

WMP No. 34796 of 2025 in WP No. 16209 of 2025

09-09-2025

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