ORDER : Prayer in W.P. No. 20437 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Pa.Ma.Ma. No. 205/2018/A2 dated 12.02.2019 and quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 12.02.2019 and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to restore the name of T.N. Thangarathna Theetchidar in the Property Tax Register No. 092/019/00280 (Old No. 8950) in respect of the property bearing door No. 134/54 East, Car Street, Chidmabaram. W.P. No. 20440 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Pa.Ma.Ma. No. 092/001/1/18-19/0004656 dated 12/02/2019 and quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 12.02.2019 and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to restore the name of T.N. Thangarathna Theetchidar in the Property Tax Register No. 092/019/00044 (Old No. 8049) in respect of the property bearing door No. 134/54 East Car Street, Chidmabaram. 1. The issue involved in these writ petitions are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order. 2. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 12.02.2019 and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to restore the name of T.N. Thangarathna Theetchidar, in the property tax register pertaining to the subject property. 3. Heard Mr. M. Sivavarthanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr. G. Pugazhenthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. 4. It is seen from records that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and filed W.P. No. 5923 of 2019 and for proper appreciation, the entire order is extracted hereunder: “2. It is stated that the second petitioner is the wife of one Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar. Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar has 3 sons and 3 daughters. First petitioner is the son of one of the daughters born to the second petitioner through Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar. Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar owns a house property at door No. 134/54, East Car Street, Chidambaram. Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar has 3 sons and 3 daughters. First petitioner is the son of one of the daughters born to the second petitioner through Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar. Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar owns a house property at door No. 134/54, East Car Street, Chidambaram. According to the petitioners, Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar executed a Will on 17.12.1999 registered in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Chidambaram in Document No. 78/1999 in favour of the petitioners with respect to the above said house property. 3. The petitioners states that they instituted Suits in O.S. Nos. 105 and 134 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram against two of the sons of the second petitioner and one of the daughters of the second petitioner relating to the house property mentioned above and the same are still pending. One of the two sons, who is a party in those suits, is one Mr. Gangadharan. Mr.Gangadharan sold the aforesaid house property to the second and third respondents by way of a registered sale deed dated 02.01.2008 in favour of the second and third respondents, registered in Document No. 27/2008 before the District Registrar, Chidambaram. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No. 11/2008 against the respondents 2 and 3 before the District Munsif, Chidambaram praying for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment. 5. The petitioners also filed another suit in O.S. No. 227/2008 before the District Munsif, Chidambaram against the respondents 2 and 3, praying for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Authorities and Electricity Authorities from effecting change in service connections in the name of the second and third respondents. It is stated that all the suits are still pending. 6. While so, the petitioners also made representations dated 02.02.2008 and 05.04.2008 requesting the first respondent not to effect change in the Municipal records by bringing in the names of the second and third respondents in the place of Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar relating to the aforesaid house property, since suits are pending before the competent Civil Court. In spite of the same, the first respondent effected change in the records by bringing in the names of the second and third respondents by the impugned order dated 20.06.2008. 7. In spite of the same, the first respondent effected change in the records by bringing in the names of the second and third respondents by the impugned order dated 20.06.2008. 7. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 20.06.2008 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to restore the name of Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar in the property tax register, house tax and water assessment register in respect of the house property bearing door No. 134/54, East Car Street, Chidambaram. 8. Notice of motion was ordered on 24.04.2009. The respondents 2 and 3 filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. 9. Heard Mr. M. Sivavarthanan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. E. Manoharan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar executed a will on 13.12.2000 in favour of his son Thiru. Gangadharan with respect to the above said house property before he died on 28.12.2000. Based on the said will, Thiru. Gangadharan sold the house property to the second and third respondents. Therefore, there is nothing wrong for the first respondent effecting change in the name of the second and third respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that they are interested only in revenue. It is stated by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the first respondent has no objection to keep the records in the name of Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar till the matter is finally adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. As far as the payment of tax is concerned, both the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 claimed that they are making payment in the name of Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar. 12. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submits that the first respondent has no objection to receive any tax paid either by the petitioners or by the respondents 2 and 3 or by both. 13. 12. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submits that the first respondent has no objection to receive any tax paid either by the petitioners or by the respondents 2 and 3 or by both. 13. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the impugned order is quashed and the first respondent is directed to keep the records in the name of Late T.N. Thangarathina Theetchidar until the matter is disposed of one way or the other in the competent Civil Court establishing the title of the property.” 5. Subsequent to the above order, two of the suits filed in O.S. Nos. 105 and 134 of 2001, before the Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram, came to be dismissed and as against the same, the petitioner has filed A.S. Nos. 60 and 62 of 2018 and the same is pending on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram. Apart from these two appeals, O.S. Nos. 11 and 227 of 2008, are also pending before the District Munsif, Chidambaram. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the pendency of the appeals and the suits were brought to the notice of the 1st respondent and inspite of the same, the 1st respondent has proceeded to transfer the property tax assessment in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 7. In the considered view of this Court, the earlier order passed by this court on 14.06.2010, continues to be in force till today. Even though, two of the suits filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by judgment and decree dated 12.10.2018, appeals have been filed and the same is pending and the appeals are nothing but continuation of the original proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5923 of 2009, will continue to have a bearing on the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent ought not to have transferred the assessment of the property tax in the name of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. This court had made it clear that the records must be restored in the original name of Late T.N. Thangarathna Theetchidar, until the matter is disposed of by the Civil Court one way or the other. This event is yet to take place and two suits and two appeals are admittedly pending before two different courts. 8. This court had made it clear that the records must be restored in the original name of Late T.N. Thangarathna Theetchidar, until the matter is disposed of by the Civil Court one way or the other. This event is yet to take place and two suits and two appeals are admittedly pending before two different courts. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents submitted that none of the suits were filed for declaration of title and therefore, there is no occasion for the court to go into the title of the property and the earlier order passed by this court pertains to only establishing the title. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there is no ground to interfere with the proceedings of the 1st respondent. 9. It is difficult to accept the above submission made by the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The learned counsel cannot pick out one word from the order and submit that the petitioner should have filed suits for declaration of title and only then can take advantage of the earlier order passed by this court. Such an interpretation will unnecessarily stretch the earlier order passed by this court out of proportion. This court only meant that the parties will have to establish their right before the concerned civil court and while doing the same, the courts can also incidentally deal with the title to the property. 10. In view of the above discussion, this court has to necessarily interfere with the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 12.02.2019 and accordingly, the same is quashed. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to restore the records in the original name of late T.N. Thangarathna Theetchidar. This position shall continue till the disposal of the two suits and two appeals. Depending upon the result, appropriate entry shall be made in the records. 11. Taking into consideration the long pendency of the civil cases, there shall be a direction to the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram, to dispose of the suits in O.S. No. 11 of 2008 and O.S. No. 227 of 2008, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 11. Taking into consideration the long pendency of the civil cases, there shall be a direction to the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram, to dispose of the suits in O.S. No. 11 of 2008 and O.S. No. 227 of 2008, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Similarly, there shall be a direction to the learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram, to dispose of A.S. No. 60 of 2018 and A.S. No. 62 of 2018, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 12. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.