logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MHC 7436 print Preview print Next print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.P.(MD)No. 35441 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD)No. 28131 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Parties : R. Kannammal & Another Versus The District Collector, Karur & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: K. Karthikeyan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R7, K.S. Selvaganesan, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 11-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
fraud, nullity, writ petition, evidence, civil remedy

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a declaration that document No. 1490/2024, dated 16‑10‑2024, is null and void on the ground of fraudulent revenue records. The petitioner alleged that respondents 8 and 9, in collusion with the 6th respondent, executed a forged sale deed in favour of the 10th respondent. The court held that the issue of nullity is a factual matter that must be determined by evidence before a civil court. Consequently, the High Court could not entertain the writ relief sought. The petition was dismissed, with liberty to approach the civil forum for appropriate relief.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Doc. No.1490/2024 on the file of the 6th respondent office dated 16.10.2024 in favour of the 10threspondent is null and void, based on the fraudulent revenue records.)

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to declare the Doc.No.1490/2024 on the file of the 6th respondent office dated 16.10.2024 in favour of the 10th respondent is null and void, based on the fraudulent revenue records.

2. Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the respondent Nos.8 to 11, notice to them is dispensed with. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondents 8 and 9 with the collusion of 6th respondent, executed a sale deed in favour of 10th respondent fraudulently. In this regard, the petitioner has given representation to the official respondents to take action against the forged sale deed executed by the respondents 8 and 9 in favour of 10th respondent. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner is approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that as the prayer of the petitioner seeking to declare the document as null and void is a matter of evidence and the same can be substantiated by adducing evidence and conducting enquiry before the appropriate civil forum. Therefore, no directions can be issued by this Court as prayed for by the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil Court and seek appropriate remedy with regard to the fraudulent execution of the sale deed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal