CRP/5661/2025 of L. THANAPAL Vs ARULMIGU DHANDAYUTHAPANI THIRUKKOIL on 10 August 2026

ORDER

The revision petition is filed at the instance of a third party to the suit proceedings, aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.17 of

2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2022.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.Nandakumar, learned counsel for the 9th respondent, Mr.V.Prasad, learned Special Government Pleader for the 4th to 6th respondents and Mr.Jothimanian, learned counsel for the contesting 20th respondent and I have also gone through the records.

3. The revision petitioner claiming to be the absolute owner of property measuring 1543.75 sq. ft., having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 14.06.1989, filed I.A.No.2 of 2022, in order to establish his claim over the said property. Pending this application, the petitioner filed I.A.No.17 of 2025 for issuing Supoena to the Tahsildar concerned. However, the trial Court has dismissed the application, finding that it was an attempt made by the petitioner for collection of evidence. It is as against the dismissal of the said application that the present revision came to be filed.

4. Mr.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner firstly contend that the petitioner traces title from 1953 onwards, and that he is a bona fide purchaser of an extent of 1543.75 sq.ft and behind his back, the said property has been included as one of the properties of the Trust, which is sought to be administered in this suit. It is in this regard, he took me through the relevant portions of the pleadings as well. He also brings to my notice that the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24204 of 2021 seeking to quash the proceedings dated 05.08.2020 by treating the personal property of the petitioner as part of the Trust under an alleged Will dated 27.09.1969 executed by Palaniappa Chettiar and his wife Chinnammal @ Rangammal. The said writ petition, according to Mr. Manoharan, was disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to move the competent civil Court and thereby, establish his rights over the subject property. He would therefore state that it is only pursuant to the said liberty granted by the writ Court, he took out I.A.No. 2 of 2022, for excluding the property bearing Old Door No.54, New Door No.187, measuring 1543.75 sq.ft, Cutchery Street, comprised in T.S.No.11 Gobichettipalayam, Erode District from the schedule of properties mentioned in IA.No.413 of 2017 in O.S.No.76 of 1981.

5. According to Mr.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, after his examination as PW1 in I.A.No.2 of 2022, it has come to his notice that there is a mistake in reference to the correct survey number of his property in the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. However, it is his contention that the property is bounded and identified on all four sides with clear and specific description of the four neighbouring properties and only in order to throw light on the actual survey number and the fact that Old Door No.54, Cutchery Street, never belonged to the testators and testatrix,

Chinnamalai @ Rangammal, the application was necessitated. He would also take me through the sale deeds as well as the partition deeds under which his vendors became entitled to the subject property, where there is a clear and specific mention of one of the boundaries, being the properties belonging to the testators and testatrix. He would therefore state that, unless the Revenue Authority comes and depose his evidence, the petitioner will not be in a position to establish his rightful entitlement to Old Door No.54, Cutchery Street. In support of his contentions, he also relied on the decision of this Court in A/m Jambukeswarar Thirukoil rep.by its Executive Officer, Korattur, Chennai-80 having office at Arulmigu Thiruvalleswarar Thirukoil, Padi, Chennai-50 Vs Gandhimathi, reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 28476

6. Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned Special Government Pleader representing AG & OT, contended that the joint Will of Palaniappa Chettiar and his wife includes the subject property over which the petitioner claims right and his attempt to nullify the inclusion of his properties as if belonging to the Trust, was also turned down by the writ Court, and though liberty was granted to the petitioner to establish his claim before the competent Court, the petitioner has not been able to establish his independent claim over the subject property, namely Old Door No.54, Cutchery Street. He would therefore state that there is no purpose in summoning the Revenue Authorities, who cannot in any manner, help the petitioner in establishing title to the subject property. He would further state that even the writ Court had directed any application filed by the petitioner to be decided within a period of six months, and despite the disposal of the writ petition on 02-02-2022, the petitioner's application is still kept pending. He would therefore state that it is only a dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner and it is seriously prejudicing the interests of the Trust, which is the rightful owner of the subject property. Therefore he prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and I have also gone through the documents that had been relied in the typed set of paper as well as the decision of this Court that has been relied on by Mr.Manoharan.

8. O.S.No.76 of 1981 was filed under Section 92 CPC, praying for passing of a scheme for management of the Trust. Originally, the subject property old Door No.54, Cutchery street was not included in the description of property, as can be seen from the description of property annexed to the plaint. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in and by its reported decision in (2017), 13 SCC page no.15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the testatrix, Rangammal had absolute right to deal with the properties mentioned in the Will and alienation made by her, during her lifetime will have to be saved and in so far as alienations made by defendants 4 and 5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the findings of this Court and held that such alienations are null and void. The Honorable Supreme Court further directed framing of a Scheme for the Trust expeditiously. Thereafter, I.A.No.413 of 2017 came to be filed by the 16th defendant for framing of a scheme in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, modifying the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.851 of 1989 dated 07.04.2005. Pending the said application, the subject property old Door No.54, Cutchery street, Gobichettipalayam, Erode district has been included as one of the items of the Trust. At that juncture, the petitioner moved a writ petition in W.P.No.2404 of 2021, challenging the order of the 20th respondent namely the AG&OT, calling upon the petitioner to surrender the property or consent for becoming a tenant under the AG&OT. This Court, noticing that the revision petitioner was claiming an independent right, and such factual disputes could not be gone into in a writ petition, directed the petitioner to move the trial Court in O.S.No.76 of 1981 within a period of 30 days. Consequently, I.A.No. 2 of 2021 came to be filed in I.A.No.413 of 2017 to exclude Old Door No.54, Cutcherry Street, from the schedule of properties in I.A.No.413 of 2017. The specific case of the petitioner is that he traces independent title to Old Door No.54, Cutcherry street, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District and his vendors were the original owners who had entered into a partition deed in the year 1989, and that the original owner, under whom they claim, had purchased the property even in the year 1950s and his vendors traced title to one Perumal Gounder who held the properties as ancestral properties, and he died in the year 1953.

9. The Court, though on the writ side, found that the petitioner should be given a fair opportunity to seek for exclusion of his property from the Section 92, suit gave liberty, which liberty has also been duly exercised by the petitioner by filing I.A.No.2 of 2022. Evidence has also been let in the said interlocutory application, at which stage the petitioner realized that in his sale deed, the survey number has been wrongly mentioned as 41 in the sale deed as well as in the parent document, namely partition deed, instead of 42. However, the mutation of Revenue records in favour of the petitioner is only in respect of Survey Number 42 part. In order to clarify the actual position, the petitioner filed an application to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam to enable measurement of his property as per the boundaries in the parent deed, namely, the partition deed dated 24.05.1989 and sale deed dated 14.06.1989 in favour of the petitioner and identify the survey number of the property purchased by the petitioner, so that the Court will be in a better position to decide the application for exclusion of his property.

10. Admittedly, the property that has been purchased by the petitioner is demarcated by four definite and specific boundaries. Patta has also been issued in the favour of the petitioner. Though the documents, namely the partition deed as well as the sale deed, under which the petitioner purchased, as claimed by Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, are registered documents, even then the fact remains that

Old Door No.54, Cutcherry Street is said to be bounded on one of the sides by properties of the testator and testatrix, which are alone the subject matter of Trust property.

11. In such view of the matter, the trial Court ought not to have shut out an opportunity to the petitioner to prove that the property under which he claims right and title is not forming part of the Trust. This liberty was in fact granted even by this Court in the writ petition and the application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 has also been taken out immediately without any delay whatsoever. It is much later, during the evidence stage, that the petitioner realized the mistake in survey number, and in order to substantiate the correct survey number alone, the application to issue summons to the Tahsildar, was necessitated. The trial Court should have entertained the said application without holding that the application was to protract proceedings, especially in view of the fact that the property claims to be belonging to the petitioner, namely Old Door No.54, Cutcherry street, Gobichettipalayam which does not even form part of the original description of properties in the plaint. It was much later that the said property came to be included as one belonging to the Trust as well. Even at that point of time, no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to put forth his objections. In such view of the matter, the trial Court should have granted the prayer sought for in IA.No.2 of 2022, which in fact would only assist the Court in arriving at a correct decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner. The attempt should not have been viewed as one to delay or protract the proceedings, especially when the petitioner claims under registered documents and tracing title way back to 1950s, and admittedly, even according to the AG & OT, the petitioner being in possession. In almost similar circumstances, this Court in Jampukeswar Thirukovil case (cited supra) permitted issuance of witness summons to the Tahsildar to speak about the land register and patta proceedings, and also finding that no prejudice would be caused, since the Temple can always contradict or deny the veracity of the documents in the manner known to the law. The said decision will also apply to the facts of the present case, since even in the said case, the defendant claimed that even his father had been issued with patta and the Revenue records have stood mutated in the name of the predecessors in interest and title of the defendant in the said suit, for seven decades.

12. For all the above reasons, I am inclined to set aside the order in I.A.No.2 of 2022. The application filed for issuing summons to the Tahsildar is not intended to delay or protract the proceedings, but only to clarify the actual position with regard to lay of the subject property and in order to establish the petitioner's claim which opportunity has been bestowed on the petitioner even by the writ Court pursuant to which alone I.A.No.2 of 2022 came to be filed.

13. In fine, civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 28.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.2 of 2022 expeditiously and in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Since the Revenue Authorities are represented by Special Government Pleader in the present revision petition, the learned Special Government Pleader is directed to instruct the Revenue Authorities at Gobichettipalayam to co-operate for early disposal of I.A.No.2 of 2022 by prompt production of the Revenue records and letting in any evidence relating to the same. It is also needless to state that the 20th respondent shall have right to cross-examine the witness (Tahsildar as well), if any need arises.

14. With the above observations and directions the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 10-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DPQ

To

1. The Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2. Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Thirukkoil Palani, Rep by its Joint Commissioner.

3. The Commissioner HR AND CE Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 034.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Gobichettipalayam, Erode Dt.

5. The District Munsif Gobichettipalayam.

P.B.BALAJI, J. DPQ CRP No. 5661 of 2025 and CMP.No.28311 of 2025 10-08-2026