Madras High Court
R.Arasappan vs V.Dhanasekar on 20 January, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Review Application No.2 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 20.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Review Application No.2 of 2025
R.Arasappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. V.Dhanasekar
2.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Collector, Chennai District,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
3.The Tashildhar, Perambur Taluk,
Chennai - 600 011.
4.The Inspector of Police, (L&O),
M-6 Manali Police Station,
Chennai - 600 068. ... Respondents
Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of
CPC read with Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule of CPC to review
Order dated 28.06.2024 made in W.P.No.16906 of 2024.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.2 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.N.Umapathi
for Alex Abraham – R1
Mr.A.Selvendran
Spl. Government Pleader – R2 to R5
ORDER
This Review Application has been filed to review the Order of this Court dated 28.06.2024 made in W.P.No.16906 of 2024, particularly in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the Order.
2. This Court while disposing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.16906 of 2024, has passed the following Order :
“6. The crux of the issue with regard to the change in revenue records. Admittedly, the suit is pending before this Court. Unless, the rights of the parties are conclusively determined by the Civil Court merely on the basis of the representation of the parties, the revenue records cannot be changed.
2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.2 of 2025
7. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there was a direction by this Court in W.P.No.32776 of 2023 dated 06.02.2024 to survey the lands. It appears that, one Arasappan, a subsequent purchaser in the suit has obtained an order for survey. However, the said order has been obtained in the above writ petition by suppressing pendency of the suit between parties. Therefore, this Court is of the view that mere direction by this Court will not enable the authorities to change the revenue records.”
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that disputed property is the subject matter of suit O.S.No.3261 of 1987 and a preliminary decree has also been passed in the said suit. The petitioner's vendor's vendor one Mr.Dharmalingam was alloted a share in the final decree in the above suit. The said Dharmalingam has sold the property in favour of one Loganathan and the said Loganathan had entered into an agreement for sale with the review petitioner and the review petitioner has 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.2 of 2025 got the property as per the decree passed in O.S.No.1542 of 2011. It appears that a suit has been filed before this Court in C.S.No.147 of 2016 challenging the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.3261 of 1987. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the said suit has been filed by the legal heirs of the parties to the partition suit in O.S.No.3261 of 1987. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the review petitioner has not suppressed any material facts while obtaining the Order in W.P.No.16906 of 2024 dated 28.06.2024. The review petitioner has purchased the property from the title holder. Now taking advantage of the observation made by this Court in the above Writ Petition in paragraph No.7, the revenue authorities have misrepresented the Order as if this Court has restrained them from passing any Orders.
4. Whereas, Mr.Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the suit in C.S.No.147 of 2016 is already pending in respect of the subject property and that apart, other suits are also pending before the City Civil Court, Chennai. According to him, totally 9 suits are pending and therefore, the review is not required at this stage. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.2 of 2025
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
6. As far as the contention of the first respondent that review is not necessary at this stage is concerned, such a contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that this Court has observed in the Writ Petition that the review petitioner has suppressed material facts. It is brought to the notice of this Court that on the date of Order in the Writ Petition, the review petitioner is not a party in C.S.No.147 of 2016. Therefore, the observation made by this Court in para 7 that the review petitioner has obtained the Order by suppressing the pendency of the suit is hereby recalled.
7. Similarly, considering the nature of dispute between the parties and as the review petitioner has derived title on the basis of the final decree passed in I.A.No.19293 of 1996 and now it appears that a suit in 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.2 of 2025 C.S.No.147 of 2016 has also been filed challenging the compromise decree passed between the parties, let the parties work out their remedy before the competent Civil Court. It also appears that in respect of possession of subject property, it has already been decided by this Court in O.A.No.181 and 182 of 2016 and the same shall bind on the parties. The revenue authorities shall take a decision on mutation on the basis of the rights declared in the civil suits. It is also made clear that the observation made in paragraph No.6 that the revenue records cannot be changed and in para 7 that mere direction by the Court will not enable the authorities to change the revenue records is also hereby recalled.
8. With the above observations, this Review Application is disposed of.
20.01.2025 vrc 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.2 of 2025 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc Review Application No.2 of 2025 20.01.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis