K PALANISAMY AND P LAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT ADDL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings of the first Respondent in Pa. Ma. See. Ma. No. 1/06/E2 dated 23.04.2008 and consequentially directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to transfer the patta in favour of the Petitioners.

(2.) The case of the Petitioners is that they are the absolute owners in respect of survey Nos. 367/2 and 400/2 in Ichipatti, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District, to an extent of 7.20 acres and 3.42 acres respectively. Earlier, one Muthu Gounder, great grand-father of the second Petitioner herein was the absolute owner of total extent of 31.33 acres in survey Nos. 366/2, 378, 387/1 and 400/2 in the above said village. He died intestate on 29.05.1914 leaving behind three sons, namely, Kandappa Gounder, Karuppa Gounder and Raya Gounder and the revenue records have been changed in the name of Kandappa Gounder, who is the eldest son of Muthu Gounder and the taxes have been paid by him. The third son Raya Gounder died on 15.01.1932 leaving behind the two sons, namely, Muthu Gounder and Karuppa Gounder. The other brothers of Raya Gounder, namely, Kandappa Gounder and Karuppa Gounder died without marriage. Therefore, Karuppa Gounder was the only legal hair for the entire property owned by Muthu Gounder. The above said Karuppa Gounder executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter Lakshmi, the second Petitioner herein, on 27.01.2004 in respect of Survey No. 367/2 to an extent of 3.60 acres and Survey No. 400/2 to an extent of 2.85 acres and thereafter, the second Petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of her husband/the first Petitioner herein in respect of Survey No. 367/2 to an extent of 3.60 acres and as such, both the first Petitioner and the second Petitioner became the absolute owners of the property in Survey Nos. 367/2 and 400/2. The revenue records also stand in their name.

(3.) That being the position, the Respondents 3 and 4 herein started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of the Petitioners in respect of the above said two survey numbers claiming right over the property by virtue of an alleged sale deed said to have been executed by Raya Gounder in favour of one Linga Gounder on 05.11.1924 in respect of Survey Nos. 367/2 to an extent of 7.20 acres and Survey No. 400/2 to an extent of 1.14 acres. After several transfers finally the Respondents 3 and 4 purchased the properties. In view of the said claim of the Respondents 3 and 4, the first Petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No. 293 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam, for declaration declaring the right over the property and also for a consequential injunction restraining the Respondents 3 and 4 herein from interfering with their possession of the property. The Respondents 3 and 4 also filed their written statements and contesting the suit which is pending as on date on the file of District Munsif, Palladam. Thereafter, the Respondents 3 and 4 filed an application before the second Respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, to cancel the patta stands in the names of the Petitioners and to include their names in the patta by placing reliance on the sale deed said to have been executed by Raya Gounder in favour of Linga Gounder on 05.11.1924 which is the subject matter of the dispute in the pending civil suit. The Petitioner contested the said petition by filing a counter. But the second Respondent arrived at a wrong conclusion that Raya Gounder is the absolute owner of the property and he had transferred the right in favour of one Linga Gounder and hence, the Petitioners cannot claim right over the property and accordingly, he removed the names of the Petitioners and included the Respondents 3 and 4 in the patta. Being aggrieved against the said order of the second Respondent, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the first Respondent, District Revenue Officer, and the said appeal was also dismissed. Being aggrieved against the said orders, the present petition has been preferred with the above said prayer.