{"id":86626,"date":"2008-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008"},"modified":"2014-11-22T12:01:27","modified_gmt":"2014-11-22T06:31:27","slug":"ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADRUAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 22\/09\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.No. 10472 of  1996\nand\nW.M.P.No.13874 of 1996 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2008\nand\nS.A.No. 1824 of 2000\nand\nC.M.P.Nos. 21168 to 21170 of 2001\n\nW.P.No. 10472 of  1996\n\nRamanathan alias Arunachalam\t\t\t...Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The District Revenue Officer,\n  Office of the District Collector,\n  Sivaganga,\n  Pasumpon Muthuramaling Thevar District.\n\n2.The Revenue Divisional Officer\n  Devakkottai.\n\n3.The Tahsildar,\n  Devakkottai Taluk,\n   Pasumpon Muthuramaling Thevar District.\n\n4.V.R.sebtgukbatgab Chettiar\n\t\t\t\t\t\t...Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for\nissuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent\nin Pa.Mu.(P1) 20389\/96 dated Nil (7\/1996) and singed on 11.07.1996, directing\nthe change of patta in the name the 4th  respondent and others in respect of the\nproperties to an extent of 13 acres and 65 cents in i)A Ward, Block 17, TS.No.76\nii) A Ward, Block 16, TS No.3 iii)Award Block 18 TS No.1 iv)A Ward, Block 15,\nTS.No.10 and V)A ward, Block 15, TS No.4 and quash the same.\n\nS.A.No. 1824 of 2000\n\n#Ramanathan alias Arunachalam\t\t\t...Appellant\n\nVs\n\n$1.V.R.Arunachalam\n\n2.Vr.Senthilnathan\n\n3.N.Ramanathan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n4.Sr.Peria Karuppan Ambalam\t\t\t...Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis Appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1999 and made\nin A.S.No.160 of 1998 on the file of Addl. District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial\nMagistrate, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.06.1998 and\nmade in O.S.No.48 of 1996 on the file of Sub-Court, Devakottai.\n\n!For Petitioner   ...Mrs.N.Krishnaveni for\n \t              M\/s.T.R.Rajaraman\n^For R.1 to R.3   ... Mr.D.Sasikumar\n\t   \t      Govt.Advocate\n\nFor R.1\t\t  ... Mr.R.Sundarsrinivasan\n(S.A.No.1824\/2000)\nFor R2& R4\t  ...Mr.M.V.Krishnan\n(S.A.No.1824\/2000)\nFor R3\t\t  ... Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan\n(S.A.No.1824\/2000)\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n******\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tThe writ petitioner is also the appellant in the Second Appeal.  The
\nwrit petition which was pending before the Prinipal Bench was directed to be
\ntransferred to be heard along with the Second Appeal by the orders of the
\nHon’ble Chief Justice dated 18.06.2007. Accordingly, they were heard together
\nand a common order is being passed.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tIn W.P.No.10472 of 1996, the writ petition is directed against the
\norder of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District dated  Nil,
\nJuly,1996, wherein by which the DRO, directed pattas to be transferred in the
\nfollowing manner:-\n<\/p>\n
Sl.No\tPatta No\tSurvey No\t\tPatta Transferred in the name of<\/p>\n
1\t1029\t Ward A Blok 15, T.S.No.26847   V.R.Senthilnathan Chettiar
\n\t\t Sq.ft<\/p>\n
2\t744\t Ward A.Block \t\t\tJameendar Junior
\n\t\t T.S.No.4 to an extent of 15 A  Ramanathan Chettiar  and
\n\t\t 2918 Sq.ft\t\t\tV.R.Senthinathan Chettiar
\n  \t\t\t\t\t\t(joint patta)<\/p>\n
3\t758\t Ward A Block 17 T.S.No.76-1A,   V.R.Arunachallam
\n\t\t 99 cent.\t\t\t Chettiar<\/p>\n
\t\t Ward A.Block 18\t\t 5 A  14 cent
\n\t\t T.S.No.1
\n \t\t Ward A Block 16
\n\t\t T.S.No.3<\/p>\n
\t3.\tIt is against this order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition
\nand it was admitted on 25.07.1996.  The following interim order was granted in
\nWMP.No.13874 of 1996:-\n<\/p>\n
“There will be an interim stay only in reference to grant of patta.  This roder
\ncannot be taken as an order relating to possession of the properties, which can
\nbe agitated only in Civil Court . Notice.”\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tIn the mean while, even when the writ petition was pending, the
\npetitioner filed a suit against the respondents in O.S.No.48 of 1996 before the
\nSub-court, Devakottai, seeking for a declaration that that the suit property
\nbelonged to the plaintiff exclusively and for a consequential injunction that
\nany one claiming that in their names should not interfere with the plaintiff’s
\npossession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the schedule to
\nthe plaint.  The schedule to the plaint described the following properties:-
\n“1) T.S.No.A15\/4 in which western portion out of three portion from east to
\nwest; measuring 5 acres 90 cents lying on ground as a single land (Punja land)\n<\/p>\n
2)T.S.No.416\/3\/3 having an extent of 65 acres 3 cents consisting of 2(tw)
\nportions from east to west in which in the eastern portion, the eastern most
\nportion having an extent of 1 acre 81 cents (Punja).\n<\/p>\n
3)T.S.No.A17\/1 having an extent of 1 acre 99 cents (Punja land)\n<\/p>\n
4)T.S.No.A18\/1 in entirety having an extent of 3 acres 33.7 cents.(punja land)\n<\/p>\n
5)Vacant house site bearing T.S.No.A15\/10 having an extent of 62 cents.”\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tThe case of the petitioner in the suit was that the suit property
\nbelong to his maternal grand father AL.VR.ST.Veerappa Chettiar.  The said
\nVeerappa Chettiar was in exclusive possession of the suit property and he had
\nexecuted a Will dated 18.01.1885 in favour of the plaintiff. He died on
\n06.02.1985. Even during the life of Veerappa Chettiar, the petitioner had
\nenjoyed the properties and patta was transferred in his name.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.\tThe defendants in the suit (respondents in present writ petition)
\nfiled a written statement contesting that the Will produced by the plaintiff was
\na forged one and an impersonated document.  The respondents 1 and 2 were the
\nsons of late Veerappa Chettiar. The said Veerappa Chettiar had registered a Will
\ndated 22.01.1981 executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and they were in
\njoint possession and enjoyment of the suit property and paying taxes and kists.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tThe trial Court after a protracted trial, by judgment and decree
\ndated 29.06.1998, dismissed the suit.  In respect of the contention between
\nparties, the trial Court framed seven issues. The first issue related to the
\ngenuineness of the Will dated 18.01.1985 produced by the petitioner \/ plaintiff
\n(marked as Ex.A.1). The second issue related to the claim of the defendants \/
\nrespondents that the properties belong to them pursuant to the Will dated
\n22.01.1981 (marked as B2) left by the late Veerapa Chettiar. In respect of these
\ntwo issues, the trial Court rendered a finding that the Will produced by the
\npetitioner \/ plaintiff was suspicious and the circumstances prove that it would
\nnot have been written by the late Veerappa Chettiar.  The evidence tendered by a
\nNotary Public by name Mahesh (P.W.5) cannot be believed, as the document was not
\nrecorded in the register maintained by him and the Will was not approved in the
\nCourt in a manner known to law.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tIt held that the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 cannot be believed, since
\nthe Will was not a genuine document and properties being in enjoyment of the D.1
\nand D.2 which was sold to D.3 and D.4 is acceptable. The Will dated 22.01.1981
\nproduced by the defendants was genuine and the properties correctly passed on to
\nthe defendants which was in turn alienated to the defendants 3 and 4.  As
\nagainst the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the
\nAdditional District Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in
\nA.S.No.160\/1990.  The lower appellate Court also framed the very same issues as
\nissue Nos.1 and 2 and confirmed the findings rendered by the trial Court in
\nrespect of first issue namely the genuineness of the Will produced of the
\npetitioner \/ plaintiff. (Ex.A.1) and held it was not genuine. With reference to
\nthe second issue regarding the Will produced by the defendants 1 and 2,(Ex.B.2)
\ncannot be accepted as the document was not proved in a manner known to law.
\nThough it was claimed that the properties were vested on them, the Will in
\nEx.B.2 was not proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tHaving lost in these two Courts, the petitioner moved this Court
\nwith his Second Appeal.  At the time of admission, the following issues were
\nframed by this Court:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“1.When the plaintiff has proved the Will dated 18.01.1985 Ex.A2 in
\naccordance with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, is the learned Additional
\nDistrict Judge right in dismissing the suit only because there was a discrepancy
\nin Ex.A.2.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.When the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.27\/99 to compare the
\nsignature in the Will with the admitted signature of the testator by an expert
\nopinion, is the learned Additional District Judge correct in rejecting the same
\nand comparing the signatures on his own?\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Is the learned Additional District Judge correct in rejecting the
\napplication in I.A.No.34\/99 for receiving additional evidence without assigning
\nany reason when the documents sought to be marked as additional evidence will
\nclearly prove the case of the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tSubsequently, a status quo order was given by this Court on
\n15.10.2001 restraining the respondents from putting up any construction in the
\nsubject matter of suit.  However, after a counter was filed, this Court vacated
\nthe staus quo granted by this Court by an order dated 20.10.2001.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tIt is stated by both sides that the outcome of the Second Appeal
\nwill decide the destiny of the writ petition.  Therefore, the Court must take up
\nthe Second Appeal first.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.\tMrs.N.Krishnaveni, learned counsel appearing for Mr.T.R.Rajaraman,
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of the
\nattestation of two or more witnesses is mandatory and it has to be proved in
\nterms of Section 63(C) of the Succession Act.  If one attesting witness is able
\nto prove the execution i.e.if he satisfies the requirement of the Will by other
\nwitness also, examination of other witnesses can be dispensed with.  What is
\nenvisaged under Section 63 is that one attesting witness examined should be in a
\nposition to prove the execution of the Will.  She relied upon the judgment of
\nthe Supreme Court in Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs Narayan Namdeo Kadam reported in AIR
\n2003 Supreme Court 761, wherein she referred the following passage found in
\npara:10 of that judgment, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“10….The one attesting witness examined, in his evidence has to satisfy the
\nattestation of a Will by him and the other attesting witness in order to prove
\nthere was due execution of the Will.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.\tFurther, she also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme
\nCourt in Sridevi and others V.Jayaraja Shetty and others reported in AIR 2005
\nSupreme Court 780 for the proposition that merely because the testator is an old
\nperson or that he died within 15 days after execution of the Will, that cannot
\nbe termed as an suspicious circumstance unless the same is proved by those who
\nare questioning the Will.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.\tFurther, she placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court
\nreported in Pentakota Satyanarayana and others V. Pentakotal Seetharatnam and
\nothers<\/a> reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4362 and submitted that if all the
\nwitnesses depose that they had signed as identifying witnesses and that the
\ntestator was sound in disposition of mind and the document was also contained
\nsignatures of the attesting witnesses and the scribe, then the burden of proof
\nin rejecting the Will will be shifted to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.\tFurther reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in
\nDaulat Ram and others Vs. Sodha and others reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court\n<\/p>\n
233. Reference was made to the following passage found in para 10 of the
\njudgment, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“10…. In order to assess as to whether the Will has been validly executed and
\nis a genuine document, the propounder has to show that the Will was signed by
\nthe testator and that he had put his signatures to the testament of his own free
\nwill; that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind and
\nunderstood the nature and effect of the dispositions and that the testator had
\nsigned it in the presence of two witnesses who attested it in his presence and
\nin the presence of each other.  Once these elements are established, the onus
\nwhich rests on the propounder is discharged.  But where there are suspicious
\ncircumstances, the onus is on the propounder to remove the suspicion by leading
\nappropriate evidence.  The burden to prove that the Will was forged or that it
\nwas obtained under undue influence or coercion or by playing a fraud is on the
\nperson who alleges it to be so.”\n<\/p>\n
\t16.\tThe learned counsel also placed reliance upon certain other
\njudgments which are noted below for the purpose of establishing as to what are
\nthe circumstances under which the Court cannot presume suspicion of a document,
\nthe impermissibility of attacking a document after a long delay and other
\ncircumstances under which a Will can be stated to have been proved.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)\t\tIn H.Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N.Thimmajamma and others
\nreported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 443\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)\t\tIn Beni Chand (since dead) now by L.Rs Vs. Smt.Kamla Kunwar
\nand others reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 63.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)\tIn N.Kamalam (dead) and another Vs. Ayyasamy and another reported in
\n2001 (7) SCC 503.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)\t\tIn S.Sundaresa Pai and others Vs. Mrs.Sumangala T.Pai and
\nanother reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 317.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)\t\tIn Madhukar D.Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage reported in 2002
\n(2)SCC 85.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi)\t\tIn Ramabai Padmakar Patil (dead) by Lrs and others
\nVs.Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande and others reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court
\n3109.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.\tShe also submitted that in so far as R.1 and R.2 had not filed any
\ncross objections they cannot re-argue the issue in the Second Appeal and
\ntherefore, pleaded that no finding should be rendered in respect of the
\nWill,(Ex.B.2) by which R.1 and R.2 were claiming ownership of the property.  In
\nthis context, she relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Choudhary Sahu
\n(dead) by Lrs vs. State of Bihar reported 1982 (1) SCC 232 found in para:1 of
\nthe said judgment:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“1)The first part of Rule 22 only authorities the respondent to support
\nthe decree.  If he wants to challenge the decree, he has to take recourse to the
\nsecond part, that is, he has to filed a cross-objection if he has not already
\nfiled an appeal against the decree.  But the respondent State had neither filed
\nany appeal nor cross-objection.  Therefore, on the strength of the first part of
\nRule 22(1) of Order 41 the respondent State could only support the decree not
\nonly on the grounds decided in its favour but also on the grounds decided
\nagainst it.  But the Commissioner could not set aside the finding in favour of
\nthe appellant on the strength of Order 41, Rule 22(1).”
\nHowever, in the same judgment the learned counsel failed to note the following
\npassage found in paras:12 & 13, which are as follows:-
\n\t“12.\tThe object of this Rule is to avoid contradictory and inconsistent
\ndecisions on the same questions in the same unit.  As the power under this rule
\nis in derogation of the general principle that a party cannot avoid a decree
\nagainst him without filing an appeal or cross-objection, it must be exercised
\nwith care and caution.  The Rule does not confer an unrestricted right to re-
\nopen decrees which have become final merely because the appellate court does not
\nagree with the opinion of the court appealed from.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Ordinarily, the power conferred by this Rule will be confined to those
\ncases where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant further
\ninterference with the decree of the lower court is rendered necessary in order
\nto adjust the rights of the parties according to justice, equity and good
\nconscience.  While exercising the power under this Rule the Court should not
\nlose sight of the other provisions of the Code itself nor the provisions of
\nother laws, viz., the law of limitation or the law of court fees etc.”\n<\/p>\n
\t18.\tPer contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent Mr.R.Sundar
\nSrinivasan, submitted that when a suit is decreed the succeeding party cannot
\nfile any appeal or cross-objection but can challenge the findings adverse to him
\nby supporting the decree.  He also submitted that there can be no appeal against
\nthe finding by the defendant, when a suit was ultimately dismissed and the
\nfinding rendered in that suit cannot operate as a res judicata against the
\ndefendant.  He also submitted that the appeal will not lie against a mere
\nfinding and the party who is not aggrieved by the decree cannot file any appeal.
\nHe relied upon the following judgments;-\n<\/p>\n
i)In Balkrishna Das Agarwal Vs. Radha Devi and others reported in AIR 1989
\nAllahabad 133.\n<\/p>\n
ii)In Gendalal & another Vs. Raghunath (Dead) & Ors reported in 2007 (2) CCC 485
\n(M.P.)\n<\/p>\n
iii)In Smt.Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and others reported in AIR 1974 Supreme
\nCourt 1126.\n<\/p>\n
iv)In Corporation of Madras Vs. P.R.Ramachandriah and others reported in AIR
\n1977 madras 25.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.\tHe further submitted that the R.1 and R.2 need not have proved the
\nWill in the absence of any denial of execution of the Will and only when the
\nexecution of the Will or attestation thereof, is disputed the requirement to
\ncall the attesting witness will arise.  If his execution is not denied, the
\nproof of the Will become unnecessary. Ex.B.2 Will is stated to have been
\nmodified by Ex.A.2 Will, then Ex.A.2 will be in the nature of a codicil and
\ntherefore, the genuineness of Ex.B2 Will cannot be questioned by appellant who
\nrelies upon the Ex.A.2 Will.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)In R.Vellingiri and another Vs. R.Kannaian and others reported in 2008(1) CTC\n<\/p>\n
130.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)In Thayyullathil Kunhikannan and others Vs. Thayyullathil Kalliani and
\nothers reported in AIR 1990 Kerala 226.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)In S.Kaliyammal and others Vs. K.Palaniammal and others reported in AIR
\n1999 Madras 40.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the burden of proof of a
\nWill clouded in a suspicious circumstance is set out in the decision of the
\nSupreme Court in Ramchandra Rambux Vs. Pabai and others reported in AIR 1965
\nSupreme Court 354.  He also submitted that if an issue is framed and found
\nagainst the defendant is not enough to conclude that it constitutes res judicata
\nand the issue must have been directly put in issue and the decision of the
\nparticular issue should be essential for disposal of the case. Other wise, it is
\nnot res judicata. For this proposition, the learned counsel relied upon the
\nfollowing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sajjadanashin sayed Md.B.E.Edr
\n(D) by L.Rs V. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court
\n1238.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.\tFinally, the learned counsel submitted that the comparison of the
\noriginal Will does not require any expert opinion and this Court can itself can
\ncompare the signatures with the admitted signatures in accordance with Section
\n73 of the Indian Evidence Act and placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court
\nin Dharmalingam Vs. Senthilkumar reported in 2008 (3) TLNJ 4 (Civil). He
\ntherefore prayed for dismissing the second appeal at the same time reversing the
\nfindings of the lower appellate Court and confirm the decree passed in the
\noriginal suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.\tMr.R.A.Mohanram, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted
\nthat the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the
\nlower Courts and it should not be reversed by the High Court in the exercise of
\nthe power under 100 of the C.P.C.  Though it may not be a strictly a finding of
\nfact but an admixture of law.  He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in
\nBhagwan Kaur Vs. Kartar Kaur and others reported in 1994 (5) SCC 135.  He also
\nrelied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt.Jaswant Kaur Vs. Smt.Amrit
\nKaur and others reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 74 and emphasised the
\nfollowing passage found in para:9 of the said judgment:-
\n\t“9. In cases where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, its
\nproof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant.  What,
\ngenerally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the
\nCourt’s conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is
\nwhether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the
\nconscience of the Court that the Will was duly executed by the testator.  It is
\nimpossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the Will
\noffers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances
\nsurrounding the making of the will.”\n<\/p>\n
\t24.\tIn the light of the above submissions and legal precedents, this
\nCourt compared the original Wills produced before this Court in Ex.A.2
\n(18.01.1985) and Ex.B.2 (22.01.1981).  It can be certainly seen in Ex.A.1 Will
\nthat the signatures of late Veerapan Chettiar not only varies from page to page
\nbut also in two pages the signature is put into two lines and not in a single
\nline.  Apart from that, the trial Court had given cogent reasons for
\ndisbelieving Ex.A.2 Will, which has also been affirmed by the lower appellate
\nCourt.  Therefore, in a Second Appeal the concurrent finding of the two courts
\nbelow cannot be lightly brushed aside.  Therefore, the Second Appeal is liable
\nto be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.At the same time, the arguments of R.1 and R.12 that the lower court’s
\nfinding regarding Ex.B.2 Will is erroneous merits acceptance.  As rightly
\ncontented by the learned Counsel for the respondents that there is no necessity
\nto file any cross-objections as it is only a finding on a fact and that finding
\ncan be assailed and the trial Court’s decree can be supported by the
\nrespondents.  The trial court in para:22 of the judgment had given elaborate
\nreasons for accepting Ex.B.2, Will whereas the lower appellate Court has
\ndisbelieved if only on the ground that the attesting witnesses were not
\nexamined. As rightly contended that Ex.A.2 Will can only be a codicil and if
\nthat is sought to be relied on the existence of Ex.B.2, Will cannot be denied.
\nFurther, no contentions were raised by the petitioner\/plaintiff regarding the
\ngenuineness of Ex.B.2, Will.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.\tIn the light of the above, the Second Appeal is dismissed with
\ncosts.  The findings of the Trial court with reference to Ex.B.2, Will is
\nrestored and the lower appellate Court’s finding regarding Ex.B.2, Will is set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.\tIn the light of the disposal of the Second Appeal, the order passed
\nby the DRO cannot be found fault with.  Since the writ petitioner is not the
\nreal owner of the property and he having lost the Second Appeal, there is no
\nquestion of getting any patta in his favour to the said property.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.In fine, the writ petition also stands dismissed and consequently,
\nconnected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
ssm<\/p>\n
copy to:-\n<\/p>\n
1.The District Revenue Officer,
\n  Office of the District Collector,
\n  Sivaganga,
\n  Pasumpon Muthuramaling Thevar District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
\n  Devakkottai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Tahsildar,
\n  Devakkottai Taluk,
\n  Pasumpon Muthuramaling Thevar District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008 BEFORE THE MADRUAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22\/09\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.K.CHANDRU W.P.No. 10472 of 1996 and W.M.P.No.13874 of 1996 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2008 and S.A.No. 1824 of 2000 and C.M.P.Nos. 21168 to 21170 of 2001 W.P.No. 10472 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-22T06:31:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-22T06:31:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3468,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-22T06:31:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-22T06:31:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-22T06:31:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008"},"wordCount":3468,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008","name":"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-22T06:31:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanathan-alias-arunachalam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramanathan Alias Arunachalam vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86626","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86626"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86626\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}