Sasikala v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC9 Dec 2025WP/3565/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 3565 of 2025; Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; patta; District Revenue Officer Chengalpattu; Thasildar Pallavaram; Thiruneermalai Village; S.No 295/41; S.No 295/42; Arulmigu Arkeeswarar Temple Pammal; registered sale deed document No.206/1968; fabricated document dated 12.04.1962; Chellappa Naidu; Venupillai; Na.Ka. No 16553/2023/A4; counter affidavit; disputed questions of fact; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; writ petition maintainability; declaration of title; civil suit; liberty granted; WMP.No.3945 of 2025; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a civil suit to redress their grievance; connected WMP.No.3945 of 2025 closed; No Costs. ¶¶30

Sasikala Vs the District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a civil suit to redress their grievance; connected WMP.No.3945 of 2025 closed; No Costs.

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, and not the third respondent temple, are the owners of the property in S.No 295/41 (44 cents) and S.No 295/42 (38.5 cents), Thiruneermalai Village, Pallavaram Taluk, and therefore entitled to issuance of patta in their favour. +1 more

¶¶23

Court's answer

There is no clinching evidence on record, whether in the form of revenue records or court orders, to exclusively establish that the petitioners are the owners of the subject property.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since disputed questions of fact are involved, this Court in a writ petition cannot interfere with the impugned order; the petitioners will have to prove their case only by filing a civil suit seeking declaration of title.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The petitioners can prove their title over the subject property only by letting in oral and documentary evidence and by filing a suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.) declined, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to interfere with the order dated 19.11.2024 of the District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu rejecting the petitioners' request for patta over S.No 295/41 (44 cents) and S.No 295/42 (38.5 cents) in Thiruneermalai Village, Pallavaram Taluk, which had earlier been granted to the third respondent temple based on sale deed document No.206/1968. Holding that there was no clinching evidence in the form of revenue records or court orders exclusively establishing the petitioners' ownership, and that disputed questions of fact on title cannot be decided in a writ petition, the Court disposed of the petition granting liberty to the petitioners to file a civil suit for declaration of title with oral and documentary evidence; connected WMP.No.3945 of 2025 was closed.

¶1

WP No. 3565 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

WP No. 3565 of 2025

¶7

1.SASIKALA, W/o Manavalan No 6/58, Mettu Street, Vridhachalam Cuddalore District 2.RAJALAKSHMI, W/o Ranganathan No 5/2 Kalvai Kandigai Kalvai Post Chengalpattu District

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

1.The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District

¶11

2.The Thasildar, Pallavaram, Chennai

¶12

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Arkeeswarar Temple Pammal Chennai

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

call for the records in Na.Ka. No 16553 / 2023 / A4 dated 19.11.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue patta to the petitioners’ property in S. No 295 / 41 extent of 44 cents and S. No 295/42 extent of 38.5 cents in Thiruneermalai Village, Pallavaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District within the time frame fixed by this honble Court.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): MR. S.SARATH CHANDRAN

¶16

For Respondent(s): MR.D. RAVICHANDER,SGP FOR R1 & R2 MR.K.KARTHIKEYAN FOR R3

¶17

ORDER

¶18

__________Page 1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 3565 of 2025

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner’s request to issue patta in their favour for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, on the ground that only based on a registered sale deed bearing document No.206/1968, patta was issued earlier in favour of the third respondent.

¶22

The petitioner has raised various contentions in this writ petition for the

¶23

purpose of establishing that they are the owners of the property and that erroneously patta was issued in favor of the third respondent temple.

¶24

The petitioner claims that the document dated 12.04.1962 said to have executed by the petitioner’s father Chellappa Naidu, in favour of Venupillai is a fabricated document.

¶25

The contention of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition has been disputed by the respondents as seen from the counter affidavit filed by them before this Court. There is no clinching evidence placed on record in the form of revenue records or in the form of the court orders to exclusively establish that the petitioners are the owners of the subject property. Further, the sale deed bearing document No.206/1968, based on which patta was issued in favour of

¶26

__________Page 2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 3565 of 2025

¶29

the third respondent temple, is of the year 1968. In view of the same, the dispute which is the subject matter of this writ petition cannot be decided in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Only by letting in oral and documentary evidence and by filing a suit for declaration that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the subject property, the petitioners will be able to prove their title over the subject property. Since there are disputed questions of fact involved, this Court in a writ petition cannot interfere with the impugned order, since petitioners will have to prove their case only by filing a civil suit seeking for declaration of title.

¶30

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a civil suit to redress their grievance in the manner known to them under law. No Costs. Connected WMP.No.3945 of 2025 is closed.

¶31

09-12-2025

¶32

Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKM

¶33

__________Page 3 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 3565 of 2025

¶36

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.