Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1811 (MAD)

K. Subramanian v. District Revenue Officer

2014-07-01

R.SUBBIAH

body2014
Judgment 1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in No.Nil, dated 22.04.2011, changing the patta for 0.33.0 Ares of lands situate in S.Nos.84/12 and 84/11B2 of Pathinettankudi Village, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District in the name of 7th respondent, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to restore the original entry. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner viz. K.Subramanian, Meenakshi Sundaram, Nagarajan and Ganesan jointly purchased 81 1/2 cents of land in S.Nos.84/12 and 84/11B of Pathinettankudi Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District by way of registered sale deed bearing No.1087/1972, dated 10.05.1972. All of them are joint owners of the property and they were jointly running a business namely Pandian Rubber Industry in the above premises. Patta was also issued in respect of the said property in patta No.626 in the name of Pandian Rubber Factory for 0.09.0 Ares in S.Nos.84/11B2 and 0.24.0 Ares in S.No.84/12. All of them jointly mortgaged the property to SIDCO and obtained loan. Subsequently, they could not run the business profitably and hence, they closed the business. The above said 81 cents of lands have been in their joint possession and enjoyment. While so, one of the partners, Meenakshi Sundaram died on 26.06.2004, leaving behind the petitioners 2 and 3 as his legal heirs and another partner Nagarajan died on 04.06.2007, leaving behind the petitioners 4 to 6 as his legal heirs. The respondents 5 and 6 are the legal heirs of deceased partner Ganesan. While so, in August, 2013, the 7th respondent Rukmani herein proclaimed that she has purchased their land from respondents 5 and 6, who are the legal heirs of deceased Partner Ganesan. Later, the petitioners came to know that respondents 5 and 6 have fraudulently sold the entire land to the 7th respondent by a sale deed dated 19.01.2011. In fact, the respondents 5 and 6 are having only 1/4th share in the above lands. But they executed the sale deed as if they are the owners of the entire lands. Hence, the second petitioner gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. But, no action has been taken. In fact, the respondents 5 and 6 are having only 1/4th share in the above lands. But they executed the sale deed as if they are the owners of the entire lands. Hence, the second petitioner gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. But, no action has been taken. Further, based on the said sale deed dated 19.01.2011, patta which stood in the name of Pandian Rubber Factory was changed in the name of 7th respondent by RTR File No.483/2011. The respondents 5 and 6 are only having 1/4th share. The 8th respondent and his wife the 7th respondent have fraudulently created document as if the 7th respondent purchased the entire land and the 8th respondent attested the same, knowing well it contains false details. The 7th respondent has fraudulently produced the above said forged sale deed before the revenue authorities and changed the patta in her name. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition to quash the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 22.04.2011. 3. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay of the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent dated 22.04.2011 on 29.11.2013. Thereafter, the respondents 7 and 8, appeared through counsel and the seventh respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the present writ petition, has been filed suppressing materials facts. Actually the property measuring an extent of 81/12 cents of land in Survey No.84/12 and 84/11B of Pathinettankudi Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District was initially purchased by a partnership firm called "The Pandian Rubber Industry" and the first petitioner, Meenakshi Sundaram, Nagaraj and Ganesan were the partners of the firm. Since, the partnership firm could not be run profitably, the property belonging to the firm was pledged to the Deena Bank as security. Later, as the Bank could not realize the due amount, it filed a suit in O.S.No.904 of 1980 arraying the partnership firm as the 1st respondent and the other partners and the persons claiming under them as defendants on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. But, even prior to the filing of the suit, the partnership firm was dissolved and the terms and conditions of dissolution and liquidation of the partnership was recorded in a deed dated 31.08.1977. But, even prior to the filing of the suit, the partnership firm was dissolved and the terms and conditions of dissolution and liquidation of the partnership was recorded in a deed dated 31.08.1977. As per the said deed of dissolution of the partnership firm, the rights and liabilities of the partners came to be determined by the partners. As per the said deed of dissolution, except the Managing Partner Ganesan, the other partners relived themselves from all the rights and liabilities as on 31.08.1977. Hence, all the properties came to be vested with the Managing Partner Ganesan. The 5th respondent and 6th respondent, who are the legal heirs of Ganesan have became the absolute owners of the property after the demise of the said Ganesan. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that after the dissolution of the partnership, the other three partners are also entitled to 1/4th share in the land. The writ petition has been filed on the sole ground that the impugned order transferring the patta in favour of the 7th respondent, came to be passed by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Kottampatti, the 4th respondent and therefore, the order has been passed without jurisdiction. But as per the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, the authority competent, to issue a Patta Pass Book or to make changes therein is a Tahsildar. Section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986), a Tahsildar also include any other officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar authorised by the Government to exercise the powers and discharge the duty imposed on a Tahsildar under the Act. Hence, no infirmity could be found in the order passed by the Zonal Deputy Thasildar. Thus, she sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Kottampatti to pass the order, he is not pressing the said ground as according to Section 2(10) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, a Tahsildar also include the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. 5. He further submitted that originally the property was purchased by the first petitioner along with Meenakshi Sundaram, Nagarajan and Ganesan for running the business of Pandian Rubber Industry. 5. He further submitted that originally the property was purchased by the first petitioner along with Meenakshi Sundaram, Nagarajan and Ganesan for running the business of Pandian Rubber Industry. Since the property was jointly purchased by the first petitioner and other partners, each of the partner is having ¼th share in the property. Except the first petitioner, the other three partners are no more. While so, the legal heirs of one of the partners viz. Ganesan has sold the entire property in favour of 7th respondent Rukmani W/o. Palanivel. After purchase, the 7th respondent has also approached the revenue authorities and changed the patta in her name. Hence, according to the petitioner, the sale deed executed by the legal heirs of the deceased Partner Ganesan is not valid. Hence, he sought for setting aside the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 22.04.2011. 6. Countering the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8 submitted that since the partnership firm run by the first petitioner and the other three persons could not yield profit, the said firm was dissolved. At the time of dissolution, the other three partners, except the Managing Partner Ganesan relieved themselves from all rights and liabilities. Thus, all the properties came to be the absolute property of Ganesan. In this regard, the learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the recitals of the deed of dissolution of partnership firm dated 31.08.1977, and submitted that except the managing partner all the other partners relieved themselves from the rights and liabilities. In this regard, he also invited the attention of this Court to the statement made in the written statement filed by one of the partners Meenakshi Sundaram in O.S.No.904 of 1980, a suit filed by the Dena Bank against the firm and partners, and submitted that the said Meenakshi Sundaram stated in the Written Statement that he has no right or liability from the date of dissolution. Hence, according to him, the petitioners have suppressed the material facts in the writ petition. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Keeping the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire records. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that since the property belongs to the first petitioner and three other persons, each of whom are having ½th share. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Keeping the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire records. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that since the property belongs to the first petitioner and three other persons, each of whom are having ½th share. But I find that the property was purchased in the name of the partnership firm Pandian Rubber Industry. But, it is the case of respondents 7 and 8, since the firm could not be run profitably, the firm was dissolved and at the time of dissolution the first petitioner, Meenakshi Sundaram and Nagarjan have relieved themselves from the partnership firm and the property vested with the Managing partner Ganesan and therefore, the other three partners have no right over the property, from the date of dissolution. Hence, as the absolute owners of the property, the respondents 5 and 6, who are the legal heirs of the Managing Partner Ganesan sold the property in favour of the 7th respondent. Thereafter, the 7th respondent got patta transferred in her name. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of the Court the recitals made in the dissolution deed dated 31.08.1977, and the statement made by one of the Partner Meenakshi Sundaram in the Written Statement filed in the suit filed by Dena bank, in support of his contention that except Thiru.Ganesan other three partners have no right in the property after the dissolution of the partnership firm. But the petitioners are denying the said submissions. Hence, in my considered opinion, there are disputed questions of facts involved in this case. If there is any disputed questions of facts involved, then the same cannot be adjudicated in the Writ Petition, since in the Writ Petition this Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry. Therefore, I am of the opinion that since there are disputed questions of facts involved in this case, it is for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court as against the impugned order passed by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, and the writ is not a remedy. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2013 are also dismissed and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 is closed.