1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16-12-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN WP(MD)No.12152 of 2011 And MP(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 G.Deivaprakasam :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality, Ramanathapuram. 3.N.S.Asan Aliyar 4.R.Jayapandian :Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A7/4929/2011 dated 13.10.2011 and quash the same as devoid of merits and consequently directing the first respondent herein to issue the patta in favour of the petitioner. For Petitioner :Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,Senior Counsel for Mr.H.Velavadhas. For Respondents-1&2 :Mr.B.Pugazhenthi,Special Government Pleader For Respondents-3&4 :Mr.V.Sitharanjandas ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram granting patta in favour of the respondents 3 and 4. 2.I have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Pugazhenthi, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. 3.Since there is a long history of litigation between the parties, a part of the same, which is relevant for the disposal of the case on hand, is reproduced as follows:- (i)One Natarajan Chettiar had 2 sons and 4 daughters by name Ponnambalam Chettiar, Rajagopalan Chettiar, Gandhimathi Ammal, Kasthuri Ammal, Vijayalakshmi and Thangamani Ammal. (ii)The father Natarajan Chettiar and his sons Ponnambalam Chettiar and Rajagopalan Chettiar entered into a Deed of Partition dated 28.6.1974, registered as document No.1849 of 1974. (iii)Item No.5 in the schedule to the Partition Deed was a property which stood in the name of one of the daughters by name Gandhimathi Ammal However, it was stated in the Partition Deed that Gandhimathi Ammal was already married and that the property was purchased in her name from out of the joint family income and that therefore it was also available for partition. It was further stated in the Partition Deed that the said property can be divided between the 2 sons Ponnambalam Chettiar and Rajagopalan Chettiar, after obtaining a Deed of Release from Gandhimathi Ammal. It was also made clear that even if one of the brothers obtained any release from Gandhimathi Ammal, the property would eventually go to the two brothers Ponnambalam Chettiar and Rajagopalan Chettiar. (iv)With a year of the Execution of the Deed of Partition, a suit in O.S.No.75 of 1975 came to be filed by one son viz., Ponnambalam Chettiar on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, seeking partition and rendition of accounts. The other son Rajagopalan Chettiar was the first defendant in the suit. The father Natarajan Chettiar was the second defendant. All the 4 daughters viz., Gandhimathi Ammal, Kasthuri Ammal, Vijayalakshmi and Thangamani Ammal were cited as defendants 3 to 6. The basis on which Ponnambalam Chettiar filed the suit for partition was that the Deed of Partition dated 28.6.1974 was only a tentative partition modified at the instance of the Panchayadars and that a complete division https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 did not take place. (v)As many as 15 issues were framed by the Trial Court. The first issue was as to whether the Partition Deed dated 28.6.1974 was only as a tentative arrangement by way of partial partition. The fourth issue was as to whether a suit for partition was maintainable without seeking to set aside the Deed of Partition dated 28.6.1974. (vi)By a judgment and decree dated 21.3.1978, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. On issue No.1, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the Partition Deed dated 28.6.1974 was final and conclusive and that it was not a tentative arrangement but a final partition. (vii)Suit schedule item No.D was the property standing in the name of Gandhimathi Ammal. On the issue relating to the said item, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the conduct of the daughters at the time of the Panchayat was a clear pointer to the effect that the items standing in the name of the mother and the third defendant could have been only the assets of the joint family. The Trial Court also recorded the fact that Gandhimathi Ammal herself consented to the division of the 'D' schedule item between the two brothers Ponnambalam Chettiar and Rajagopalan Chettiar. Towards the end of paragraph 19 of the printed copy of the judgment, the Trial Court held that it is no longer open to Gandhimathi Ammal and her sisters (D3 to D6) to contend that those items are not joint family properties. (viii)Issue No.15 framed by the Trial Court related to 'D' schedule property, which forms the subject matter of the present writ petition and which stood in the name of the Gandhimathi Ammal. On this issue, the Trial Court recorded a finding in paragraph 22 of its judgment that it is kept aside to be divided later after the brothers Ponnambalam Chettiar and Rajagopalan Chettiar get a document of release from the third defendant Gandhimathi. (ix)The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff (Ponnambalam) by way of a regular appeal in Appeal No.316 of 1978 Gandhimathi Ammal and her two sisters filed separate cross-objections, in so far as the findings relating to 'D' schedule property and other items. The appeal and the cross-objections were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 21.1.1985. (x)Even while dismissing the appeal and the cross-objections, the Division Bench recorded a memo from the two brothers Ponnambalam Chettiar and Rajagopalan Chettiar to make provision for the unmarried daughters However, we are not concerned in the present writ petition about the said dispute. 4.After the first round of litigation between the brothers and sisters concluded, the plaintiff in the first round viz., Ponnambalam Chettiar died Thereafter, his wife and children filed a suit in O.S.No.219 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram for partition against Rajagopalan Chettiar. In the said suit, Gandhimathi Ammal was impleaded as the second defendant. Two persons by name Kannan and Thenmozhi were impleaded as third and fourth defendants in that suit. Kannan claimed to be the power agent of the second defendant Gandhimathi Ammal. He sold a portion of the property to Thenmozhi, the fourth defendant. 5.The said suit in O.S.No.219 of 1999 was later transferred to the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram and renumbered as O.S.No.88 of 2004. After trial, the suit was decreed by a judgment dated 18.8.2007, granting half share in the suit schedule properties in favour of the legal heirs of Ponnambalam Chettiar and the other half share in favour of Rajagopalan Chettiar. Even while granting the relief of partition, the Trial Court rejected the prayer for a mandatory injunction to direct Gandhimathi Ammal to execute a Release Deed in respect of the property which was the suit 'D' schedule item in the first round of litigation. 6.The judgment and decree in the said suit became the subject matter of a first appeal by Gandhimathi Ammal, her power agent and the alienee, in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 A.S.No.76 of 2007. The legal heirs of Ponnambalam Chettiar, who were the plaintiffs, also filed cross-objections in cross-objection No.24 of 2008 in so far as the rejection of their prayer for a direction to Gandhimathi Ammal to execute a Release Deed was concerned. By a judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008, the First Appellate Court allowed A.S.No.76 of 20078 in part and dismissed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs. The decretal portion of judgment of the First Appellate Court reads as follows:- “Mfnt ,Wjpahf nky;Kiwa PL 76/2007 gFjpahf mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ tprhuiz epjpkd;w j Ph ;g ;g [ khw;wp mikf;fg ;gLfpwJ/ vjph;nky;Kiwa PL 24/2008 js;Sgo braag;ggLfpwJ/ 1/ tHf;Fr ;brhj;jpy ; thjpfSf;F ghjpg;ghfK;k 1k;gpujpthjpfs; ghjp ghfKk; fpilf;fj ;jf ;fJ vd;W cj;jutpLfpd;wJ/ 2. jilahiz ghpfhuk; bghWj;J thjpfspd; tHf;F js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;Ls ;sJ/ 3/ 2 Kjy; 4 gpujpthjpfisa[k ; 2k; gpujpthjpiaa[k ; tpLjiy Mtzk; bra;J bfhLf;f cj;jutplntz;Lk ; vd;W nfl;l tHf;F 3 k;wWk; 4 ghpfhu';fs ; js;Sgo bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ 4/ v13 Mtzj;jpy; tHf;Fr ;brhj;J Fwpj;J cs;s chpik rk;g ;ejkhf jdp eltof;if vLj;Jf ;bfhs;s ntz;Lk ;/ 5. tHf;fpd; bryt[ bjhifia mtuth;fns vw;Wf ;bfhs;s ntz;Lk ; vd;Wk ; cj;jutplg;gLfpd;wJ/@ 7.As stated earlier, there were only 4 defendants in the suit in O.S.No.219 of 1999, filed by the legal heirs of Ponnambalam Chettiar. The first defendant was Rajagopalan Chettiar, the brother of Ponnambalam Chettiar. The second defendant was the Gandhimathi Ammal, the sister of both Ponnambalam Chettiar and Rajagopalan Chettiar. The third defendant Kannan was the power agent of Gandhimathi Ammal and the fourth defendant Thenmozhi was the alienee of a portion of the property. At the time of institution of O.S.No.219 of 1999, no further alienations, other than the one in favour of the fourth defendant Thenmozhi had taken place. 8.But after the filing of the suit O.S.No.219 of 1999, the fourth defendant Thenmozhi sold the property to one Mr.Rathinam. He sold the same in favour of the writ petitioner herein. 9.As a purchaser pendente lite, the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.255 of 2005 for impleading himself as a party to O.S.No.219 of 1999, which had by then got transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.88 of 2004. But the impleading petition filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed by the Trial Court. The dismissal of the impleading petition was also confirmed by this Court in CRP(MD) No.491 of 2006. 10.After the Civil Court decreed the suit O.S.No.88 of 2004 (O.S.No.219 of 1999) and the same was modified by the Sub Court, on appeal in A.S.No.76 of 2007 and Cross Objection No.24 of 2008, the legal heirs of Ponnambalam Chettiar and Rajagopalan Chettiar joined together and sold the property in dispute, to the respondents 3 and 4 herein, by a Sale Deed dated 29.7.2010 On the basis of the purchase, the respondents 3 and 4 applied to the first respondent on 16.8.2011 for transfer of patta. The first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objections on 17.8.2011 The first respondent took up the application for oral hearing on 24.8.2011 Since the petitioner did not appear, a fresh notice was issued fixing the date of hearing as 5.9.2011. 11.But in the meantime, the petitioner appears to have approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, challenging the notice issued by the Tahsildar, the first respondent herein. The RDO, without even issuing any notice to the respondents 3 and 4, passed an order dated 5.9.2011 (the date of hearing fixed by the Tahsildar), cancelling the entire proceedings of the Tahsildar. 12.Aggrieved by such an ex parte order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondents 3 and 4 filed a revision before the DRO. On https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 7.10.2011, the DRO stayed the order of the RDO and directed the Tahsildar (first respondent herein) to dispose of the patta transfer application, within 4 weeks. In pursuance of the said order, the first respondent passed the order impugned in the writ petition. 13.The entire sequence of events narrated above would show two things viz., (i) that the property which is the subject matter of the present dispute is covered by the Partition Deed dated 28.6.1974, whose validity had been upheld by the Sub Court, Ramnad in O.S.No.75 of 1975 and by a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.316 of 1978 and (ii) that in the subsequent proceedings O.S.No.88 of 2004 as confirmed by the judgment in A.S.No.76 of 2007, the property in dispute has been held liable to be divided between the legal heirs of Ponnambalam Chettiar and Rajagopalan Chettiar in two equal shares. Therefore, the ownership of the legal heirs of Ponnambalam Chettiar to half share and the ownership of Rajagopalan Chettiar to half share in the property, cannot anymore be disputed by anyone. The respondents 3 and 4 herein have purchased half share in the disputed property from the legal heirs of Ponnambalam and purchased the other half from Rajagopalan Therefore, a clear and valid title to the property in entirety has passed on to the respondents 3 and 4, from persons whose ownership has been confirmed by the Civil Courts in two rounds of litigation, spanning a period of about 33 years (1975 to 2008). In such circumstances, the order of the Tahsildar granting patta in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 cannot be objected to by any one including the petitioner. 14.Moreover, the petitioner is a purchaser pendente lite. His vendor R.G.Rathinam was himself a purchaser pendente lite. R.G.Rathinam's vendor by name Thenmozhi as well as Gandhimathi Ammal were parties to the suit O.S.No.219 of 1999 (O.S.No.88 of 2004). Gandhimathi Ammal as well as Thenmozhi are bound by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.88 of 2004 and A.S.No.76 of 2007. The attempt made by the petitioner who is the third purchaser in succession and that too pendente lite, to get impleaded in the suit O.S.No.219 of 1999 failed miserably. His civil revision petition was also dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi at all to question the grant of patta in favour of the respondents 3 and 4. 15.In other words, the title of the vendors of the defendants 3 and 4 has been confirmed in two rounds of litigation. The claim of the earliest predecessor in title of the petitioner herein viz., Gandhimathi Ammal was rejected even in the first round of litigation. The purchase by the petitioner, during the pendency of the litigation and the rejection of his application for impleading, drew the curtain down for the claim of the petitioner to the property. Therefore, out of the two persons pitted against each other in this battle field, one has a valid and unimpeachable title to the property. The other entered the fray in the middle of the litigation and was shown the door even at the stage of impleading petition. Therefore, the grant of patta by the first respondent, to the respondents 3 and 4, cannot be assailed on any ground, especially by a person like the petitioner. 16.In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To:1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality, Ramanathapuram. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.44339. RP/30.12.2011/4P/4C. Order in W.P.(MD) 12152 of 2011,16-12-2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/