RAJAMANICKAM Vs. THE TAHSILDAR,ALANGUDI,PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Declaration to declare that the sub-division of S.No.139/7B2 with an extent of five cents from out of S.No.139/7B at Keeramangalam North Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District is void and consequently directing the respondents to dismantle the fence put up on 17.02.2014.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that an extent of 0.51.0 hectare of land in Survey No.139/7A and an extent of 0.07.5 hectare of land in Survey No.137/7B of Keeramangalam North, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District belonged to one Dharmalingam of Chinna Retta Vayal Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Thanjavur District. After his death, his wife and daughters filed a partition suit in O.S.No.116 of 1996 at Sub-Court, Pudukottai and it was decreed. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 in that suit were the legal heirs of the deceased Dharmalingam and others were tenants as well as purchasers pendelite. While so, one Balasundaram who was the first defendant in the suit is entitled to 16 cents as a share holder and his wife Rajambal who was the seventh defendant was entitled to 16 cents by purchase. In the year 2001, the said Balasundaram and Rajambal had sold away 30 cents to one shanmugam retaining two cents. The said shanmugam sold away major portion to eight persons including the petitioner and the second respondent herein. Interestingly, the second respondent had purchased the property on 13.02.2012 long after the purchase dated 13.12.2001.

(3.) While the situation stood thus, in the above-said suit for a partition final decree petition was filed in I.A.No.63 of 2000 by the plaintiffs thereto and in that Shanmugam filed I.A.No.44 of 2004 to get himself impleaded. However, the same was dismissed by the court below. Challenging the same, he filed a Civil Revision Petition in CRP(MD).No.1674 of 2004, which is pending before this Court. The petitioner is the 40th respondent and the second respondent herein is not at all a party in the proceedings nor has he filed any petition in order to be allotted the property purchased by him to his share in equity. However, by colluding with the first respondent, he has subdivided about five cents purchased by him with a separate sub-division without notice to the petitioner. Further, he fenced the said property even though an objection was raised before the first respondent. Taking advantage of the fencing, he is arranging for putting up construction and digging trench for construction. Having been left with no other remedy, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated supra.