Allowed¶45

Mrs.K.Gomathi, v. the Collector

Madras HC4 Mar 2026WP(MD)/7733/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

separate patta; joint patta; patta in name of deceased owner; undivided inherited property; partition pending; civil suit priority over revenue action; Tahsildar/Tasildhar Sankarankovil; Tirunelveli Collector; gift settlement deed; impleadment of legal heirs; Writ of Certiorari; Article 226; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; W.P.(MD)No.7733 of 2016; 04.03.2026

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.10.2015 quashed; second respondent directed to issue patta in the name of the deceased father Udayar; parties to abide by the judgment in pending suit O.S.No.258 of 2015; writ petition allowed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD)No.6404 of 2016) closed. ¶45

Mrs.K.Gomathi, Vs the Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 10.10.2015 passed by the second respondent issuing separate patta is illegal while a civil suit adjudicating the parties' rights over the undivided property is pending. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

Issuing separate patta through the impugned order while the civil suit adjudicating the rights of the parties is pending is illegal.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

When properties have not been divided by any competent Court through partition, the claimants may be entitled to a joint patta but definitely not separate patta.

¶37

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 10.10.2015 passed by the second respondent is quashed.ratio¶43
The second respondent is directed to issue patta in the name of the deceased father, Udayar; after disposal of the suit the parties shall approach the revenue authorities and abide by the judgment passed in the suit.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (S. Srimathy, J.), W.P.(MD)No.7733 of 2016, decided 04.03.2026. Petitioner (wife of respondent 3) sought Certiorari under Article 226 against the order dated 10.10.2015 of the Tasildhar, Sankarankovil (order in R2014/3969/14/1425) issuing separate patta to respondents 4 and 5, siblings of her husband who had inherited their father Udayar's undivided property and gifted it to her by settlement deed. Held: where property has not been divided by partition through a competent court, claimants may get a joint patta but not a separate patta; issuing separate patta while civil suit O.S.No.258 of 2015 (District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil) adjudicating the parties' rights was pending was illegal. The impugned order was quashed; the second respondent was directed to issue patta in the name of the deceased father Udayar, with the parties to approach revenue authorities after disposal of the suit and abide by its judgment. Petition allowed, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. Legal heirs of the deceased fourth respondent stood impleaded as respondents 6 to 10 by order dated 03.06.2025.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.7733 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.7733 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)No.6404 of 2016

Mrs.K.Gomathi

... Petitioner

The Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

The Tasildhar, Taluk Office, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

Mr.Kadarkarai

¶14

Mrs.Vadivu Alias Vadivammal (Died)

¶15

Mrs.Mariyammal

¶16

Shanmugathai

¶17

Ratha

¶18

Balasankar

¶19

Balakrishnan

¶20

Kadarkarai (R6 to R10 are impleaded vide Court order dated 03.06.2025 in WMP(MD)No.6428 if 2025 in W.P.(MD)No.7733 of 2016)

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

1/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.7733 of 2016

¶25

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order in R2014/3969/14/1425, dated 10.10.2015 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan

¶27

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader For R-5 : Mr.N.Pragalathan For R-6 & R-7 : Mr.G.Ramanathan

¶28

For R-8 & R-9 : Mr.M.Suri

¶29

For R-3 & R-10 : No appearance

¶30

: R-4 Died

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to quash the order dated 10.10.2015 passed by the second respondent.

¶33

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the wife of the third respondent. The respondents 4 and 5 are the siblings of the third respondent.

¶34

2/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.7733 of 2016

¶37

Pending the writ petition, the fourth respondent died and her legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 6 to 10. The third respondent is the only son of one Udayar, and the said Udayar had two daughters, namely, Vadivu @ Vaidvammal and Mariyammal, who are shown as respondents 4 and 5. After the demise of the said Udayar, the third respondent inherited the property and claims that he is the sole owner of the inherited property. Subsequently, he executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the petitioner, who is the wife of the third respondent. Now, respondents 4 and 5 are also claiming rights over the property and approached the revenue authorities for issuance of separate patta. When the properties have not been divided by any competent Court through partition, respondents 4 and 5 cannot seek separate patta. They may be entitled to a joint patta, but definitely not separate patta. When a dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner had already preferred a civil suit in O.S.No.258 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, and the same is pending.

¶38

The respondents have already filed a written statement that the suit

¶39

was on the verge of completion and it is at the stage of arguments by both the sides. When the suit is pending, the rights of the parties are adjudicated before the civil suit, issuing separate patta through the impugned order is illegal.

¶40

3/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.7733 of 2016

¶43

Therefore, the impugned order is quashed.

¶44

The second respondent is directed to issue patta in the name of the deceased father, namely, Udayar. After disposal of the suit, the parties shall approach the revenue authorities, and abide by the judgment passed in the suit.

¶45