ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “To direct the 1st respondent to forthwith cancell Patta Nos. nos. 4475 and 440 purportedly issued by the Tahsildhar, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai District to (1) V.K.Ramamurthy and his siblings, and to (2) P.T. Balasamy, in respect of the property comprised in Survey Nos 13/1A1, 13/1A2, 13/1B, 13/2 and 13/3 measuring 10 acers situated in Maduravoyal village, Chennai Distirct .” 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for a mandamus directing the 1 st respondent to cancel patta Nos.4475 & 440, issued by the 2 nd respondent to 4 th and 5 th respondents, in respect of the property comprised in Survey Nos 13/1A1, 13/1A2, 13/1B, 13/2 and 13/3 measuring 10 acers situated in Maduravoyal village, Chennai Distirct. Petitioner's case: 3. The petitioner would contend that one Sivakozhudammal and others had filed a suit in O.S.No.203 of 1996, on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, for declaration and permanent injunction against Jayalakshmi Ammal and the 4 th respondent in respect of an extent of 20.5 acres in S.No.13/1A1, 13/1A2, 113/1B, 13/2 and 13/3, Maduravoyal village, Chennai. The petitioner is the 8 th plaintiff in the said suit. 4. The suit was tried along with the three other connected suits and by Judgement and Decree dated 22.01.2010, O.S.No.203 of 1996, was decreed and other suits were dismissed. Instead of the challenging the said Judgement by way of a First Appeal, the 4 th respondent chose to file W.P.Nos.1520 to 1525 of 2010 and these Writ Petitions were tagged along with the W.A.Nos.379 & 380 of 2010, before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 01.04.2010, disposed of the Writ Petitions directing the 4 th respondent to file a regular First Appeal, before the Jurisdictional Court. 5. Thereafter, A.S.No.3 of 2001, was instituted by the 4 th respondent, on the file of the District Court, Tiruvallur. The petitioner herein had immediately taken out an application in I.A.No.80 of 2011 to dismiss the appeal as the appeal had been filed with a delay and petition for condonation of delay had not been filed. The appeal had been numbered without condoning the delay. Therefore, by order dated 28.03.2012, the application in I.A.No.80 of 2011, was allowed. Challenging the same, the 4 th respondent filed C.R.P.No.2406 of 2012. 6. The appeal had been numbered without condoning the delay. Therefore, by order dated 28.03.2012, the application in I.A.No.80 of 2011, was allowed. Challenging the same, the 4 th respondent filed C.R.P.No.2406 of 2012. 6. By order dated 31.07.2012, the above civil revision petition was dismissed and the 4 th respondent was directed to file a Second Appeal challenging the Judgement and Decree in A.S.No.3 of 2011. Accordingly, S.A.No.981 of 2012 came to be filed. 7. During the pendency of the above proceedings, suppressing the decree in O.S.No.203 of 1996, the 4 th respondent and his sibling have received the entire compensation amount from the National Highways Authority of India, to the tune of Rs.1,12,09,938/-. This was also brought to the notice of this Court in S.A.No.981 of 2012. Ultimately, by Judgement and Decree dated 23.04.2013, the Second Appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter back to the District Court, Tiruvallur, with a direction to the defendants to file a condone delay petition and deposit 1/6 th of the amount which has been issued to the 4 th respondent and his sibling. 8. Challenging this order, both the parties had filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order dated 02.12.2014, the SLPs were heard together and disposed of with a direction to the High Court to hear S.A.No.981 of 2012. 9. On 30.11.2020, the Second Appeal was disposed of and the matter was remitted back to the District Court, Tiruvallur, once again with a direction to deposit 1/6 th of the compensation amount received by them. Ultimately, A.S.No.3 of 2011, was restored to file. 10. During the pendency of these proceedings, the 4 th respondent and his sibling got the patta transferred in their name suppressing the pendency of these proceedings. On 29.01.2019, the petitioner submitted his objection to the 2 nd respondent for cancellation of patta issued to the 4 th respondent and his sibling. The same has not been taken up for consideration. 11. The petitioner would contend that since his entire case rests on fraud, the petitioner has directly approached this Court without exhausting their alternate remedy by invoking the superintending power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. A detailed counter has been filed by the 4 th respondent, wherein he has traced his title to the property. 12. A detailed counter has been filed by the 4 th respondent, wherein he has traced his title to the property. It is his contention that the property belonged to one L.K.Ayyavoo Naidu and Polaiah Naidu. The said Ayyavoo is the 4 th respondent's paternal uncle and Polaiah is the maternal grandfather of the 4 th respondent. 13. An extent of 26.20 acres in S.No.13/1A belonged to the aforesaid Ayyavoo and Polaiah. This property was purchased by them from one Diwan Bahadur M.Balasundara Naidu, under a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1942, for themselves and on and behalf of A.V.Munuswamy Naidu and V.Kothandarama Naidu. 14. On 14.04.1952, Munuswamy's wife and son sold an extent of 6 acres out of total extent of 26.20 acres, which formed the middle portion of the larger property to Jayalakshmi Ammal, the mother of the 4 th respondent. Thereafter, under a registered sale deed dated 19.05.1955, Ayyavoo sold 4 acres in S.No.13/1A and the entire extent in S.No.14 and 15 to the 4 th respondent's father, Kothandarama. 15. The revenue records in respect of S.No.13/1A, measuring an extent of 26.20 acres stood in the name of Ayyavoo and Polaiah. The petitioner's father had obtained a patta bearing No.1 and was carrying on brick manufacturing business under the name and style of Sri Jothi Brick Works in the said lands. 16. In the year 1960, the 4 th respondent's father died and patta was transferred to his mother's name. At this point in time the revenue records stood in the name of the 4 th respondent's parents, including Ayyavoo and Polaiah. 17. The 4 th respondent would submit that his parents had filed O.S.No.164 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee, for a declaration and possession in respect of the extent of property comprised in S.No.13/1A. This suit was filed with reference to an extent of 28.77 acres. The property was thereafter divided into five portions and petitioners claimed title and possession on the basis of the settlement deed dated 14.04.1952 and 19.09.1955. 18. The suit OS.No.164 of 1958 was filed against Kanniappa, Appulinga and Sivakozhudammal, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.203 of 1996. By a Judgement and Decree dated 27.06.1963, OS.No.164 of 1958 was decreed in favour of the 4 th respondent's mother. 19. 18. The suit OS.No.164 of 1958 was filed against Kanniappa, Appulinga and Sivakozhudammal, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.203 of 1996. By a Judgement and Decree dated 27.06.1963, OS.No.164 of 1958 was decreed in favour of the 4 th respondent's mother. 19. The said Appulinga alone challenged the same in A.S.No.313 of 1963, on the file of the Sub Court, Chengalpattu and Sivakolundammal had not challenged it. The Judgement was reversed in entirety and therefore, the 4 th respondent and his sibling had filed S.A.No.1598 of 1965 as they were brought on record as legal representatives of the said Jayalakshmi Ammal. 20. On 04.11.1970, S.A.No.1598 of 1965 was allowed thereby restoring the decree in OS.No.164 of 1958 and this decree has not been challenged further by the said Sivakozhundammal or Appulinga. The 4 th respondent's mother had also taken possession of the property in S.No.13/1A1, Maduravoyal Village, by initiating execution proceedings and through bailiff of the District Munsif, Poonamallee. 21. The 4 th respondent would submit that the A register which originally stood in the name of the predecessor in title was transferred in the name of his mother Jayalakshmi Ammal in the year 1997. Thereafter, the name Sivakozhudammal was included by the revenue authorities and joint patta was issued in the name of the 4 th respondent's mother, Jayalakshmi Ammal and Sivakozhudammal for an extent of 7.85 hectares in S.No.13/1A1. 22. Aggrieved by the issue of joint patta, Jayalakshmi Ammal had challenged the same by filing W.P.No.152 of 1998, directing the revenue authorities to hold full fledged enquiry and grant patta to the persons entitled to it in respect of an extent of 19.40 acres in S.No.13/1A1, Maduravoyal. 23. After the full fledged enquiry, the joint patta was cancelled. The Tahsildar had given notice to the 4 th respondent's mother as well as Sivakozhudammal and by order dated 01.07.1999, removed the name of Sivakozhudammal after taking note of the decree in O.S.No.164 of 1958 and restoring the patta in the name of Jayalakshmi Ammal. 24. The 4 th respondent would submit that despite all the orders in their favour passed by the Courts and different for a Sivakolunthu Ammal, continued to give trouble to the petitioners in respect of the peaceful enjoyment of the property concerned. Therefore, Jayalakshmi Ammal and her sons had filed O.S.No.1029 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee for a bare injunction. Therefore, Jayalakshmi Ammal and her sons had filed O.S.No.1029 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee for a bare injunction. They have also filed an application in I.A.No.3155 of 1993, for injunction restraining the Sub Registrar, Virugambakkam, from accepting any document presented in respect of these lands. They had also obtained an order of injunction. 25. The order was also forwarded to the Sub Registrar, Virugambakkam. After coming to know about this injunction order, Sivakolunthu Ammal, sold 10 acres referring to patta No.33 RPT No.3475 of 1997 dated 12.11.1997, which had been cancelled by Tahsildar on 01.07.1999. 26. It appears that pending these proceedings the property has been sold to the petitioner. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner had been kept pending as it was undervalued. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,57,76,000/-, which has not been paid to date and the petitioner has challenged the demand in W.P.No.22233 of 2010. 27. Sivakolunthu Ammal had filed C.S.No.1718 of 1994 on the file of this Court, which was subsequently transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee and re-numbered as O.S.No.203 of 1996, for a declaration that she is the owner of the suit property comprised in S.No.13/1A1, 13/1A2, 13/1B, 13/2 and 13/3, measuring 26.50 acres. 28. Thereafter, pending suit a sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner on 04.12.1997. The 4 th respondent would submit that the decree obtained in favour of the petitioner was a fraudulent one. It is also the case of the 4 th respondent that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands since he has suppressed the previous order of the 2 nd respondent dated 01.07.1999, wherein the joint patta granted to the petitioner's vendor Sivakozhudammal was cancelled and the patta was reverted in the name of the 4 th respondent's mother. This order has not been challenged. 29. The 4 th respondent has also come to learn that the petitioner has executed a lease deed dated 21.04.2011 in favour of one A.C.Shanmugam, which transfer is against the order passed in W.P.Nos.379 of 380 of 2010. This order has not been challenged. 29. The 4 th respondent has also come to learn that the petitioner has executed a lease deed dated 21.04.2011 in favour of one A.C.Shanmugam, which transfer is against the order passed in W.P.Nos.379 of 380 of 2010. The petitioner in the guise of seeking cancellation of patta in respect of land belonging to the 4 th respondent is also seeking cancellation of patta in respect of S.No.13/1A2 and 13/1B belonging to the Kannammal Educational Trust and the 5 th respondent. Therefore, he would contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by him. Discussion: 30. Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records. 31. The petitioner who is a subsequent purchaser seeks to challenge the transfer of patta in the names of respondents 4 and his siblings without challenging the issue of patta in the name of Jayalakshmi Ammal. 32. From the counter statement and the documents it appears that under a sale deed dated 17.12.1942, Ayyavoo, the paternal uncle of the 4 th respondent and Polaiah, the maternal grand father of the 4 th respondent had purchased an extent of 26.20 acres in S.No.13/1A for themselves and on behalf of Munuswamy and Kothandarama, the 4 th respondent's father. Under a registered sale deed dated 14.04.1952, the wife and son of Munuswamy sold 6 acres out of 26.20 acres situate in the middle of this extent to Jayalakshmi Ammal, the mother of the 4 th respondent. 33. Under a sale deed dated 19.05.1955, Ayyavoo sold 4 acres in S.No.13/1A1 and entire extent in S.Nos.14 and 15 to the 4 th respondent's father Kothandarama. The petitioner's father had obtained a patta bearing No.1 and was carrying on brick manufacturing business in the name and style of Sri Jothi Brick Works in the said land and during Fasli 1364 (1954), revenue records have been mutated in their names. 34. The 4 th respondent's father passed away in the year 1960 and patta was transferred to the name of Jayalakshmi Ammal, his mother. It appears that the 4 th respondent's parents had filed O.S.No.164 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee, for a declaration and possession of a portion in S.No.13/1A and 13/1B. 34. The 4 th respondent's father passed away in the year 1960 and patta was transferred to the name of Jayalakshmi Ammal, his mother. It appears that the 4 th respondent's parents had filed O.S.No.164 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee, for a declaration and possession of a portion in S.No.13/1A and 13/1B. They had claimed title on the basis of the sale deed dated 14.04.1952 and 19.05.1955, against Kanniappa, Appulinga and Sivakolunthu Ammal, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.203 of 1996. Kanniappa was the father and Appulinga was the brother of Sivakolunthammal. 35. On 27.06.1963, O.S.No.164 of 1958 was decreed in favour of the 4 th respondent's mother. Sivakozhudammal did not challenge the Judgement and Decree in O.S.No.164 of 1958 by filing an appeal. Her brother Appulinga, had alone filed A.S.No.313 of 1963 challenging the Judgment, that too only with reference to the first item of the property. 36. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's Judgement and Decree in its entirety. The said Judgement was challenged by the 4 th respondent and his siblings in S.A.No.1598 of 1965 as they were brought on records in the place of their mother. By Judgement and Decree dated 04.11.1970, S.A.No.1598 of 1965 was allowed, in respect of both items. The petitioner claims title on the basis of a decree in O.S.No.203 of 1996, which is filed by Sivakozhudammal for a declaration and permanent injunction against the said Jayalakshmi Ammal, the 4 th respondent's mother and this proceedings is now pending decision in AS.No.3 of 2011 on the file of the District Court, Tiruvallur. 37. The petitioner seeks to challenge the issue of patta in favour of the 4 th respondent and his siblings in this writ proceedings without exhausting the alternate remedy. As already stated the patta originally stood in the names of Ayyavoo and others including Jayalakshmi Ammal, the 4 th respondent's mother. This has not been questioned by the predecessor in title of the writ petitioner. The 4 th respondent and his siblings have only restored patta to original status. 38. That apart, the vendors of the petitioner have not challenged the transfer of patta in the name of the 4 th respondent and his siblings and it is the subsequent purchaser who seeks to challenge the same. In the earlier rounds of litigation, the 4 th respondent's parents right stood confirmed. 39. 38. That apart, the vendors of the petitioner have not challenged the transfer of patta in the name of the 4 th respondent and his siblings and it is the subsequent purchaser who seeks to challenge the same. In the earlier rounds of litigation, the 4 th respondent's parents right stood confirmed. 39. In the suit OS.No.164 of 1958, which was the suit filed by the parents of the 4 th respondent against Kanniappa, Appulinga Muddaliar and Sivakolundammal the 2 nd issue was whether the plaintiff have been in possession within 12 years prior to the suit and the 4 th issue was whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration and possession as prayed for. The main contention of the defendants was that the plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment of the property. The learned Judge analysing the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the defendants had not acquired any right or title to the 1 st item of property. 40. As regards item 2 of the suit property therein the Trial Court from the evidence garnered that one Jayarama Muddaliar, the husband of Sivakolunthammal was permitted to live in the 2 nd item of property as he was working as a maistry under the 1 st plaintiff, father of the 4 th respondent herein. They had not produced any document/title deeds to prove their right to Item 2 of the suit schedule property. The 3 rd defendant Sivakolunthammal has admitted in her oral evidence that when the construction in this item of the property had fallen down the material were removed only by the plaintiff which would only go to prove possession with the plaintiff therein, the parents of the 4 th respondent. Ultimately, the learned Judge has returned a finding that the plaintiff were in possession of Item 2 within 12 years prior to the date of suit. The Court also held that the settlement deed executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 3 rd defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed by Judgement and Decree dated 27.06.1963. 41. This Judgement has not been challenged by Sivakozhudammal and it was only her brother, the 2 nd defendant who had challenged the decree in so far as it related to the first item of property. The suit was decreed by Judgement and Decree dated 27.06.1963. 41. This Judgement has not been challenged by Sivakozhudammal and it was only her brother, the 2 nd defendant who had challenged the decree in so far as it related to the first item of property. Ultimately by Judgement and Decree in SA.No.1598 of 1965 the decree in OS.No.164 of 1958 was confirmed and possession taken by the 4 th respondent's mother. Considering the fact that the patta stood in the name of Ayyavoo as well as the 4 th respondent's parents, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 42. However, since the transfer in favour of the petitioner had taken place pending the suit, the revenue authorities are directed to restore the patta back in the name of Jayalakshmi Ammal. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner had questioned as to how the Court can restore the patta in the name of a dead person. Taking into consideration the fact that the patta which has been issued in the name of Jayalakshmi Ammal had not been set aside by the predecessors in title of the petitioners equity requires that the patta be restored to the name of Jayalakshmi Ammal and others, till the decision is arrived at in the First Appeal. 43. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above direction. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.