Disposed¶23

Ramachandran P v. Chitra .K

Madras HC2 Jul 2026REV.APLW(MD)/126/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review of patta/survey writ order: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Judge G.R. Swaminathan, disposes REV.APLW(MD)No.126 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023 (filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 CPC) on 02.07.2026. Direction No.2 on individual patta and co-pattadhar consent held to protect the writ petitioner despite patta standing in review applicant's father's name; survey by Tahsildar, Melur Taluk under the writ order suspended pending O.S.No.251 of 2023 (District Munsif Court, Melur; writ petitioner is second defendant); no costs.

What did the court decide?

Review Application disposed of with the direction that the Tahsildar, Melur Taluk shall not conduct any survey pursuant to the order in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023 pending the civil suit; no costs. ¶23

Ramachandran P Vs Chitra .K — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review Application disposed of with the direction that the Tahsildar, Melur Taluk shall not conduct any survey pursuant to the order in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023 pending the civil suit; no costs.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether Direction No.2 of the order in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023 (individual patta in the applicant's name, with co-pattadhar consent for joint patta) adequately protects the parties' interests, given that the patta stands in the review applicant's father's name and the writ petitioner has no patta. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Direction No.2 of the order passed in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023 - requiring the applicant to have individual patta in his name and, for any joint patta, consent of the co-pattadhars - very well protects the writ petitioner's rights; the patta-based ground of review is thereby answered.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Because the civil Court (District Munsif Court, Melur, in O.S.No.251 of 2023 filed by the review applicant, in which the writ petitioner is the second defendant) is seized of the issue, the Tahsildar, Melur Taluk will not conduct any survey pursuant to the order passed in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Application (Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 r/w S.114 CPC) against the order dated 12.12.2023 in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023 - Review applicant (third party) claims ownership of S.Nos.554/2A and 554/2E; patta stands in his father's name and the writ petitioner has no patta - Held, Direction No.2 of the reviewed order (individual patta in the applicant's name; consent of co-pattadhars where patta is joint) already protects the writ petitioner's rights - As the review applicant's suit O.S.No.251 of 2023 is pending before the District Munsif Court, Melur, in which the writ petitioner is the second defendant, and the civil Court is seized of the issue, the Tahsildar, Melur Taluk is directed not to conduct any survey pursuant to the writ order - Review Application disposed of; no costs.

¶1

REV APLW(MD).No.126 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

REV.APLW(MD)No.126 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023

¶7

P.Ramachandran ... Review Petitioner / 3^rd Party v. 1.K.Chitra ... 1^st Respondent / Petitioner 2.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 3.The Head Survey, Melur Circle, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents 2 & 3 / Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 114 of CPC to review the order passed in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023 dated 12.12.2023 and set aside the same.

¶9

1/4

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sathish Kumar

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.R.Nimal

¶13

REV APLW(MD).No.126 of 2025

¶14

for Mr.Charles Kamalesh M.Appaji for R.1

¶15

Mr.P.Rajagopalan Government Advocate (Civil Side) for R.2 & R.3

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The applicant herein seeks review of the order dated 12.12.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023. The case of the review applicant is that he is the owner of the land comprised in Survey Nos.554/2A and 554/2E.

¶18

2.The learned counsel for the review applicant would further contend that the patta is in the name of the review applicant's father and that the writ petitioner is not having any patta. If that be so, direction No.2 of the order passed by me clearly states that the applicant must have individual patta in his name and if he was having any joint patta, consent must be obtained from the co-pattadhars. Therefore, the direction given by me very well protects the writ petitioner's rights. It is also stated that the review applicant has already filed O.S.No.251 of 2023 on the file of the

¶19

2/4

¶20

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

¶21

REV APLW(MD).No.126 of 2025

¶22

District Munsif Court, Melur. In that suit, the writ petitioner is the second defendant. Since the civil Court is seized of the issue, the Tahsildar, Melur Taluk will not conduct any survey pursuant to the order passed in W.P(MD)No.29261 of 2023.

¶23