(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the impugned order dated 24.07.2020 in Na.Ka.No.A2/7062/2019 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for records relating to the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 in Na.Ka.No.473/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently forbearing the 2nd respondent from registering any document of alienation or encumbrance executed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the subject properties in survey No.543/1 and 544, Pandavarmangalam village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to retrieve the joint patta No.4843 by mutating the earlier patta no.170 to the land in survey no.543 (1), Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District by considering the petitioner's Sale deed dated 05.04.2022 and her representation dated 03.01.2023.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in so far as refusing to register the sale deed executed by the petitioner dated 13.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the 2nd respondent to register the pending document in Doc No.P/Kovilpatti/60/2024 dated 23.112024.)

1. The four writ petitions have common issue and the same persons hence all the four writ petitions were heard together and common order is passed.

2.(i). The W.P.(MD)No.15005 of 2020 has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 24.07.2020 passed in Na.Ka.No.A2/ 7062/2019 by the first respondent.

                     2.(ii). The W.P.(MD)No.11699 of 2022 has been filed for issuance Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 passed in Na.Ka.No.473/2022 by the 2nd respondent and consequently forbearing the 2nd respondent from registering any document of alienation or encumbrance executed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the subject properties in survey No.543/1 and 544, Pandavarmangalam village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

                     2.(iii). The W.P.(MD)No.2333 of 2023 has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to retrieve the Joint Patta No.4843 by mutating the earlier Patta No.170 to the land in Survey No.543(1) in Pandavar Mangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District by considering the petitioner's Sale Deed dated 05.04.2022 and her representation dated 03.01.2023.

                     2.(iv). The W.P.(MD)No.30765 of 2025 has been filed for the issuance Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in so far as refusing to register the sale deed executed by the petitioner dated 13.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the 2nd respondent to register the pending document in Doc.No.P/Kovilpatti/60/2024 dated 23.112024.

3.1. The brief facts of the case as stated in W.P.(MD)No.15005 of 2020 are that the subject properties are situated in Thoothukudi District, Kovilpatti Taluk, Pandavarmangalam Village, Survey No. 543 admeasuring 4 Acres 70 Cents, Survey No. 544 admeasuring 2 Acres 4 Cents and Survey No. 545 admeasuring 2 Acres 4 Cents originally belonged to Vellachi, wife of Narayana Kudumban. She had settled the subject properties and some other properties in favour of her sister’s son namely Shanmuga Kudumban, son of Karuppa Kudumban and her brother namely Mahalinga Kudumban, son of Sundara Kudumban through a registered gift deed dated 18.06.1918 registered as Document No.962 of 1918. The said Shanmuga Kudumban had two wives, first wife is Sivani Ammal and his second wife is Vellachi. He did not have any issues through first wife. He had a daughter, Ramu Ammal through his second wife. The above said Mahalinga Kudumban had married Ramu Ammal. The said Mahalinga Kudumban had sold the properties in survey Nos.543, 544 and 545 totally measuring 8 Acres and 78 cents to one Palrajan Nadar son of Ayyappa Nadar in registered sale deed dated 06.05.1946 Document No. 709 of 1946 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti. The said Palrajan Nadar is the grandfather of K.Anandaraj and K.Jeyapaul, the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.15005 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No. 11699 of 2022 respectively. Later, the said Palrajan Nadar, has sold the properties measuring 2 Acres 35 Cents out of 4 Acres 70 Cents in Survey No. 543 and 2 Acres 4 Cents in Survey No. 545 in favour of one Gurusamy Nadar, son of Ponnappa Nadar through a registered sale deed dated 23.05.1947 in Document No. 877 of 1947 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti. Based on the sale deeds the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, issued patta for Fasli No. 1357 (corresponding to the year 1947) as follows: (i) in respect of Survey No. 543 measuring 4 acres and 70 cents in the joint names of Palrajan Nadar and Gurusamy Nadar (ii) in respect of Survey No. 544 measuring 2 acres and 4 cents in the name of Palrajan Nadar and (iii) in respect of Survey No. 545 measuring 2 acres and 4 cents in the name of Gurusamy Nadar. For the Fali, 1365 corresponding to the year 1955, Tahsildar, Kovilpatti issued patta for Survey No.543/1 and 544 in the name of Palrajan Nadar. The Deputy Tahsildar, Kovilpatti issued patta passbook in the year 1972 for Survey Nos.543/1 and 544 in the name of Palrajan Nadar. The said Palrajan Nadar had obtained an agricultural loan from the Government of Tamil Nadu for digging a well, for the said had mortgaged the properties in Survey Nos. 543 / 1 and 544 in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu through a registered mortgage deed dated 31.03.1956. Subsequently, he had discharged the loan and redeemed the mortgage. He had also paid Kist from the year, 1946 and had obtained Kist receipts. The Survey No. 543 measuring 4 Acres 70 Cents had been subdivided as 543/1 measuring 2 Acres 49 Cents and 543/2 measuring 2 Acres 21 Cents. The said Gurusamy Nadar had sold the property measuring 2 Acres 21 Cents in Survey No. 543/2 and 2 Acres 4 Cents in Survey No. 545 in favour of Lakshmana Perumal, son of Samy Naickar through a registered sale deed dated 25.09.1974 in Document No. 2172 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti.

                     3.(ii). The said Palrajan Nadar died on 19.06.1984 leaving behind his wife - Panchavarnaththammal and his children - Selvamani and Kamatchirajan. Panchavarnaththammal and Selvamani had executed a registered general release deed dated 18.09.1984 in favour, Kamatchirajan in respect of all the properties of deceased Palrajan Nadar. Thus, Kamatchirajan had acquired title to the properties in Survey No. 543/1 measuring 2 Acres 49 Cents and Survey No. 544 measuring 2 Acres 4 Cents. The Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kovilpatti had issued Patta Pass Book for the subject properties in favour of Kamatchirajan in 1984 itself, which was countersigned by the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer as per the Revenue Standing Orders. In 1985, when the Updating Registry Scheme (UDR) was introduced, notices under section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act were issued to Kamatchirajan and ultimately, patta was issued for survey no.543/1 and 544 in the name of Kamatchirajan by the Special Tahsildar, UDR Scheme, Kovilpatti. Subsequently, the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti issued patta passbook for Survey Nos. 543/1 and 544 in the name of Kamatchirajan on 21.12.1995. Kamatchirajan had paid kist for the same. The said Kamatchirajan died on 29.07.2006 leaving behind his wife, Kasthuri and 2 sons Jayapal and K.Anandaraj as his legal heirs. After the demise of Kamatchirajan in the year, 2006, Kasthuri, Jayapal and K.Anandaraj had been in joint possession and enjoyment of the above-mentioned properties. Later on, the said Kasthuri, K. Jayapal and K. Anandaraj had entered into an arrangement among themselves in respect of Survey Nos. 543/1 and 544 through the registered settlement deeds dated 09.11.2018 registered as Document Nos. 7347 of 2018 and 7348 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti. On the basis of the above documents, K.Anandaraj submitted two online applications dated 19.03.2019 and 21.03.2019 to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Kovilpatti for mutation of revenue records and Patta for the subject properties in his name.

                     3.(iii). While the facts stood thus, one P.Sasikala Devi claiming to be the great granddaughter of Shanmuga Kudumban, daughter of Ponmadan and granddaughter of Mahalinga Kudumban and Ramu Ammal, had submitted a petition to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thoothukudi to include her name in the patta for the properties in Survey Nos. 543/1 and 544. The claim of P.Sasikala Devi is that though Shanmuga Kumaban and Mahalinga Kudumban are the joint owners of the subject properties in Survey Nos. 543, 544 and 545, Palrajan Nadar had purchased them on 06.05.1946 only from Mahalinga Kudumban and hence, Shanmuga Kudumban will have an undivided half-share in the subject properties. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar had passed an order dated 23.07.2019 directing P.Sasikala Devi to approach civil court to establish her title. Later, P.Sasikala Devi submitted a petition to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi claiming that the grant of patta to Kamatchi Rajan is a mistake committed under the UDR Scheme and prayed for inclusion of her name. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi called for remarks from the Tahsildar, Thoothukudi. The Tahsildar had also sent a letter dated 03.10.2019 to the Revenue Divisional Officer insisting P.Sasikala Devi to approach the competent civil court to establish her right. The said Shanmuga Kudumban died on 22.07.1951 and prior to his death he never objected to his sister's son cum son-in-law, Mahalinga kudumban selling the entire subject properties. Also he had never objected to the pattas granted to Palrajan Nadar and Gurusamy Nadar in 1947. He had also executed a registered Will dated 27.06.1950 in Doc.No.10 of 1950 and in the said Will, there is no reference at all about the subject properties in Survey No. 543, 544 and 545. Hence, the said Shanmuga Kudumban never claimed any right over the subject properties till his demise on 22.07.1951. The said Shanmuga Kudumban left behind his wife, Ramu Ammal, his sons, Ponmadan and Shanmugam and daughters, Valivittal, Chinnaramu and Poomathiammal. None of them claimed any right over the subject properties at any point of time. Ponmadan was the President of the Pandavarmangalam Village Panchayat for two tenures and he had been survived by his wife Siriya Pushpam, 4 sons and 3 daughters and he died on 24.10.1991 and his wife, Siriya Pushpam died on 24.05.2004. They never claimed any right over the subject properties during their lifetime. Except Sasikala Devi, none of the other children of Ponmadan questioned the absolute title, continuous possession and enjoyment of subject properties. Thus, she had claimed right after 74 years of purchase of the subject properties by Palrajan Nadar.

                     3.(iv). The said P.Sasikala Devi had submitted another appeal dated 21.10.2019 to the Revenue Divisional Officer raising the same contentions without impleading K.Anandraj, K.Jeyapaul, Kasthuri, legal heirs of Kamatchirajan son of Palrajan Nadar. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi had passed the order dated 24.07.2020 directing the inclusion of name of P.Sasikala Devi in the revenue records in respect of the subject properties along with the name Kamatchirajan. Hence the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.15005 of 2020. At the time of admission, an interim order of stay was granted.

                     3.(v). In the meanwhile, the said Sasikala Devi filed W.P(MD) No.14094 of 2020 against Sub Registrar and District Registrar to declare the document dated 09.05.1946 (7091 of 1946), 18.10.2018 (4462 of 2018), 31.10.2018 (4855 of 2018), 09.11.2018 (7347 of 2018) and 09.11.2018 (7348 of 2018) in respect of the subject properties in Survey Nos.543, 544 and 545 as null and void. She did not array K.Anandraj and K.Jeyapaul as parties. This court had disposed the writ petition at the stage of admission on 09.10.2020 directing the District Registrar to consider her representation taking note of section – 68(2) and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. While the Sub-Registrar was considering the said Sasikala Devi’s petition based on the direction of the Court, the said K.Jeyapaul raised objections for the Kasikala Devi’s petition. But the Sub Registrar failed to consider the objection raised by K.Jeyapaul on the premise that order of stay granted in W.P.(MD) No.15005 of 2020 had not been extended. And the Sub-Registrar, Thoothukudi, by order dated 03.06.2022 in Na.Ka.No.473/2022, rejected the protest petition submitted by K. Jeyapaul. Hence the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11699 of 2022. This Court granted an order of injunction restraining the Sub Registrar from registering any document of alienation executed by Sasikala Devi in respect of the subject properties.

                     3.(vi). In the meanwhile, K.Anandraj had filed W.A.(MD)No.1242 of 2020 challenging the order dated 09.10.2020 passed in W.P.(MD) No.14094 of 2020. Sasikala Devi contested the appeal. The Division Bench had allowed the writ appeal and quashed the order of the Single Judge and granted liberty to Sasikala Devi to institute a civil suit for establishing her title. But the said Sasikala Devi did not file any civil suit praying for declaration of title.

                     3.(vii). While that being so, on 05.04.2022 one G.Sangareshwari and Mageshwari had purchased punja property in Patta No. 170, Survey No. 543(1) to an extent of 0.81.0 hectares (2 acres) in Document No. 6085/2022, in Sub Registrar Office, Kovilpatti from one B.Sasikala Devi, through her power agent S.Pushparaj. And they claim that from the date of purchase they were in possession and enjoyment of the said property and approached the District Collector, Thoothukudi to obtain patta, wherein after considering they claim the Tahsildar issued a joint patta by including their names in Patta No. 4843 for Survey No. 543(1). But when they wanted to obtain a loan from a bank by mortgaging the subject property, they sought a computerized patta through the Revenue Department's website. However, they could not obtain the patta and came to know that their names in the joint patta had been removed by the Tahsildar, Thoothukudi. On 03.01.2023, G.Sangareshwari sent a representation to Tahsildar, Thoothukudi to issue the joint Patta No. 4843, by including their names 'Mageshwari & Sankareshwari'. However, the Tahsildar failed to consider their request. Hence, they had filed W.P.(MD)No.2333 of 2023. The contention of the said P.Sasikala Devi is that she is granddaughter of Shanmuga Kudumban. Mahalinga Kudumban executed sale deed in Doc.No.7091 of 1946 to Paulraj Nadar by including the shares of her grandfather Shanmuga Kudumban. K.Jeyapaul and K.Anandaraj are the legal heirs of the Paulraj Nadar. By the strength of the above documents, various documents were executed and patta in respect of the said properties were also issued in the name of third parties. On appeal filed by her before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti and by virtue of the order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Joint Patta was issued in the name of P.Sasikala Devi and her family members. On the basis of this order, P.Sasikala Devi preferred the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.14094 of 2020 seeking direction to the District Registrar, Tirunelveli District to cancel the registration of Sale deed in Doc. No.7091/1946 and it was ordered accordingly by this court. K.Anandaraj filed an appeal in W.A.(MD)No.1242 of 2020 against the said order. The writ appeal was allowed and directed P.Sasikala Devi to approach the Civil Court to establish the title. During the pendency of W.P.(MD)No.11699 of 2022 filed by K.Jeyapaul and W.P. (MD)No.15005 of 2020 filed by K.Anandaraj, P.Sasikala executed a sale deed dated 21.11.2024 in favour of M/s. VVV Property Developer Pvt. Ltd., The Sub Registrar, Thoothukudi had registered the same as pending Doc.No.P60/2024 and have not returned the same. Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar, Thoothukudi issued an order dated 14.08.2025 stating that the registration could not be done as this court has passed an interim order in W.P.(MD)No.15005 of 2020. Hence the writ petition in filed in W.P(MD)No.30765 of 2025 by the said Sasikala.

4. Heard Mr.J.Barathan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners K.Anadaraj and K.Jeyapaul, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.C.Susi Kumar, the Learned Counsel appearing for P.Sasikala Devi, Mr.Solaisamy, the Learned Counsel appearing for G.Sangareshwari and Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the documents. The petitioners and private respondents have filed written submissions and the same is taken for consideration.

5. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court has given its anxious consideration. In order to understand the case, the genealogy is necessary. The Learned Counsel appearing for K.Anandaraj and K.Jeyapaul has submitted a genealogical tree which is extracted hereunder:









6. From the above it is evident that the said Mahalinga Kudumban had married Shanmuga Kudumban’s 2nd wife’s daughter namely Ramu Ammal. The said Mahalinga Kudumban and Ramu Ammal was having five children and the first son is Ponmadan. The said Ponmadan was having wife and seven children as his legal heirs and one of the children is Sasikala Devi who is contesting this case. It is the case of the said Sasikala Devi that the Vellachi has settled 12 items in favour of Shanmuga Kudumban and Mahalinga Kudumban, but the said Mahalinga Kudumban had sold the share of Shanmuga Kudumban to the said Palrajan Nadar. It is seen that the said Mahalinga Kudumban has sold only three properties, but the said Sasikala Devi has not whispered anything about the other nine properties. There is a possibility that the entire property in the disputed three items went to the share of Mahalinga Kudumban.

7. Further, the sale is executed by the said Mahalinga Kudumban on 06.05.1946, which is more than 80 years. Further the said Palrajan Nadar had sold some portion of the land to another person i.e. Gurusamy Nadar 23.05.1947. And patta was standing in the name of the said Palrajan Nadar and Gurusamy all these years, which is more than 80 years. The said Sasikala Devi has kept quite all these years and suddenly raised her voice now. Further as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for K.Anandaraj and K.Jeyapaul, the Shanmuga Kudumban who is the father-in-law of Mahalinga Kudumban, has not raised voice during his life time. It is in fact the allegation against the said Mahalinga Kudumban is that he had sold the share of Shanmuga Kudumban. If so, the really aggrieved person is the father-in-law Shanmuga Kudumban, but he has not raised his voice during his life time. Further the said Ramu Ammal who is the daughter of Shanmuga Kudumban has not raised her voice during her life time allegation that his father share has been sold by Mahalinga Kudumban. Furthermore, the children of Ramu Ammal namely Ponmadan, Shanmugam, Valivittal, Chinna Rammu and Pommathi have not raised their voice during their life time. The said Ponmadan was having wife and seven children as his legal heirs and they have not raised voice except one i.e. the said Sasikala Devi. When the said Shanmuga Kudumban, his five children and then the wife and six children of Ponmadan were kept quite all these years, then due to their silence the Sasikala Devi may not be entitled to patta directly at this stage. The said Sasikala Devi ought to adjudicate the issue in the suit and prove her title. It is pertinent to state that when the said Sasikala Devi contested the case in W.A. (MD)No.1242 of 2020, the Hon’ble Division Bench vide its judgment dated 16.04.2024 has directed her to seek remedy through suit. Until now she had not preferred any suit. Having suffered an order, the said Sasikala Devi is not entitled to have her name in patta as “joint pattadar”.

8. When the K.Anandaraj and K.Jeyapaul are claiming title from the purchase by their father from Mahalinga Kudumban through sale deed dated 06.05.1946 and on the other hand the said Sasikala Devi is claiming right as legal heir of Mahalinga Kudumban and Shanmuga Kudumban, there is a serious title dispute between the parties. In such circumstances, the said Sasikala Devi cannot claim joint patta unless the title dispute is resolved. Hence, she is not entitled to joint patta and consequently she cannot encumber the property. Hence the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 refusing to register the document executed by Sasikala Devi is valid and the W.P. (MD)No.30765 of 2025 filed by Sasikala Devi is liable to be rejected. And also the W.P.(MD)No.2333 of 2023 filed by Sangareshwari. G, who has purchased from Sasikala Devi, who is seeking to retrieve the joint patta in favour of Sasikala Devi is liable to be rejected.

9. Since this Court has held that the said Sasikala Devi is not entitled to joint patta at this stage that too without adjudicating the title dispute before the Civil Court, the impugned order dated 24.07.2020 issuing joint patta ought to be quashed and accordingly quashed and the W.P.(MD)No.15005 of 2020 is allowed.

10. Based on the joint patta, the said Sasikala Devi had presented sale document for registration, but the writ petitioner K.Jeyapaul submitted protest petition and objections stating that there is interim stay in W.P.(MD)No.15005 of 2020, but the respondents rejected to consider the protest petition stating that the stay has not be extended. It is settled principle of law that once stay is granted, unless it is vacated as per law, the stay granted would be continuing. Hence the reasoning stated for not considering the objection petition is incorrect. Moreover, if there is any doubt regarding the stay granted by the Court, the respondents ought to have approached this Court and clarified the order. But the respondents failed to do so. Hence the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.

11. Already the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that there is civil dispute and has directed the said Sasikala Devi to approach the Civil Court to resolve the dispute. Since this Court has also held there is title dispute between the parties, hence the parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court to resolve their title dispute. If any suit is filed the Trial Court is directed to consider the suit uninfluenced by any observations made in this order or any observations made by the authorities. The Trial Court shall consider the case of the parties independently based on the evidence of the parties and pass judgments.

12. For the reasons stated supra, the W.P.(MD)No.15005 of 2020 is allowed, W.P.(MD)No.11699 of 2022 is allowed, W.P.(MD)No.2333 of 2023 is dismissed and W.P.(MD)No.30765 of 2025 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.