Sundaram vs S.Kandasamy

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WA No. 827 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA010550482025}
and
WA No. 835 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA010550472025}
and
CMP No s . 7070 and 7084 of 2025
WA No.827 of 2025:
1.Sundaram
S/o.Vaithi Gounder, Kariyanoor,
Kaatuvalavu, Kannatheri Village,
Sangagiri Taluk, Salem.
2. Valeeswaran
S/o Mani,
Door No.5/448, Muniyappan Koil Street,
Katturkaatukoottai,
Amani Kondalampatti, Salem.
Appellants
Vs
______________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
1.S.Kandasamy
S/o Savi Gounder,
Old Door No.8/102-1, New No.9/298
Korakuttepatti, Katchupalli Village,
Edapadi Taluk, Salem District.
2.The District Collector
Salem District, Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Salem District, Salem
4.The District Revenue Officer
Salem District, Salem.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Sangagiri,
Salem District.
6.The Tahsildar
Edapadi Taluk, Edapadi,
Salem District.
7.The Inspector of Police
Konganapuram Police Station,
Konganapouram,
Salem District.
8.The Assistant Engineer
(Operation and Maintenance),
TANGEDCO, Sannantheri,
Salem District.
9.The Village Administrative Officer
Katchupalli Village, Edapadi Taluk,
Salem District.
Respondents
______________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
WA No.835 of 2025:
1.Sundaram
S/o.Vaithi Gounder, Kariyanoor,
Kaatuvalavu, Kannatheri Village,
Sangagiri Taluk, Salem.
2. Valeeswaran
S/o Mani,
Door No.5/448, Muniyappan Koil Street,
Katturkaatukoottai,
Amani Kondalampatti, Salem.
Appellants
Vs
1.S.Kandasamy
S/o Savi Gounder,
Old Door No.8/102-1, New No.9/298
Korakuttepatti, Katchupalli Village,
Edapadi Taluk, Salem District.
2.The District Collector
Salem District, Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Salem District, Salem
4.The District Revenue Officer
Salem District, Salem.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Sangagiri,
Salem District.
6.The Tahsildar
Edapadi Taluk, Edapadi,
Salem District.
______________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
7.The Inspector of Police
Konganapuram Police Station,
Konganapouram, Salem District.
8.The Assistant Engineer
(Operation and Maintenance),
TANGEDCO, Sannantheri,
Salem District.
9.The Village Administrative Officer
Katchupalli Village, Edapadi Taluk,
Salem District.
10.The Sub-Registrar,
Magudeanchevadi
Magudeanchevadi Post
Sangagiri Taluk, Salem.
Respondents
PRAYER : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the common order dated 21.2.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.127 and
2916 of 2023.
For Appellants: Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondents: Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
for R1
Mr.M.Roshan Atiq
Addl. Govt. Pleader
for R2, R4 to R6, R8 & R9
in WA No.827/2025 and
for R2, R4 to R6, R8 to R10
in WA No.835/2025
Mr.N.Palanivel
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R3 & R7
______________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by G.Arul Murugan,J. )
These intra-Court appeals arise out of the common order
dated 21.2.2025 in W.P.Nos.127 and 2916 of 2023 and are,
therefore, heard analogously and disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their rank in W.P.No.127 of 2023.
3. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants; Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel for the first
respondent; Mr.Roshan Atiq, learned Additional Government Pleader
for respondents 2, 4 to 6, 8 and 9 in both the appeals and
respondent No.10 in W.A.No.835 of 2025 and Mr.N.Palanivel,
learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for respondents 3
and 7.
______________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
4. The writ petitioner had filed two writ petitions: One for
declaration to declare the eviction order passed against him and the
consequential eviction carried out are illegal and unconstitutional;
and the other to enjoin the Sub Registrar from registering the sale
deed presented by respondents 9 and 10.
5. The writ petitioner claims to be the original owner of the
property through a registered partition deed dated 12.10.1990.
Subsequently, the property was sold through various sale deeds.
Respondent Nos.9 and 10 claim to be purchasers of the property
through sale deeds. The writ petitioner and his family members
have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.81 of 2013 for declaration to declare
the sale agreement and the sale deed as null and void and for
permanent injunction. Respondents 9 and 10 have filed a civil suit
in O.S.No.235 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Sangagiri
for permanent injunction and the said suit was subsequently
transferred to the file of Sub-Court, Sangagiri and re-numbered as
O.S.No.201 of 2013, wherein the relief of permanent injunction was
amended for grant of mandatory injunction directing the writ
petitioner and his family members to hand over possession of the
______________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
property in favour respondent Nos.9 and 10. Admittedly, both the
suits came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 11.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.81 of 2013, the writ
petitioner and his family members have filed A.S.No.50 of 2022 and
respondent Nos.9 and 10 have filed A.S.No.83 of 2020. Both the
appeals are stated to be still pending.
6. When things stood thus, respondent No.9 has preferred a
complaint on 12.9.2022 alleging that his possession and enjoyment
was disturbed by the writ petitioner. He has also filed
Crl.O.P.No.19676 of 2021 before this Court for police protection,
which came to be disposed of on 9.6.2022 directing the police to
enquire into the matter and to pass orders within a period of four
weeks. Armed with the aforesaid order, the matter was referred to
the Revenue Divisional Officer, who, by order dated 14.11.2022,
directed the Tahsildar to put respondent Nos.9 and 10 in possession
of the property and the said order was given effect to and the writ
petitioner was evicted from the subject-property.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, writ petitions came to be
______________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
filed. Taking note of the fact that when the matter is sub judice
before the civil court in two appeal suits, the Revenue Divisional
Officer has no jurisdiction or authority to entertain or go into the
civil dispute, the learned Single Judge held that the order passed by
the Revenue Divisional Officer directing to evict the writ petitioner
from the property was without jurisdiction and allowed both the writ
petitions and directed the authorities to restore the possession to
the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, these two appeals are
filed.
8. From the perusal of the records, it is evident that
respondents 9 and 10 have admittedly filed a suit initially seeking
injunction and later on they have amended the relief seeking
mandatory injunction to put them in possession of the property.
The suit filed by them came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said
dismissal, respondent Nos.9 and 10 have filed appeal suit, which is
still pending before the first appellate court. Parallelly, the other
appeal suit filed by the writ petitioner insofar as denying the relief
of declaration to declare the sale deed as null and void is also
pending before the first appellate court. Admittedly when the suit
______________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
filed by respondent Nos.9 and 10 seeking possession came to be
dismissed, only if respondent Nos.9 and 10 ultimately succeed in
the appeal suit, then based on the civil court decree, if any, passed,
the competent execution court would be in a position to put
respondent Nos.9 and 10 in possession of the property.
9. However, when the appeal suits are still pending, the
Revenue Divisional Officer, who has no authority to entertain any
civil dispute sub judice before the court, had gone into the issue
and interpreted the decree passed and had ultimately issued the
impugned proceedings evicting the writ petitioner from the
property. The learned Single Judge rightly finding that appeal suits
are pending and the Revenue Divisional Officer has completely
exceeded its jurisdiction had allowed the writ petitions directing the
authorities to put back the writ petitioner in possession.
10. On an overall analysis, we do not find any error or
infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The
learned Single Judge has also made it clear that the Court has not
gone into the rights of the respective parties and it is left open to
______________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
both the parties to raise all the grounds before the civil court, where
the appeal suits are pending. When the learned Single Judge has
relegated the parties to the lis to agitate their grievances before the
civil court where the respective appeal suits are pending, we do not
see any merit in these writ appeals.
11. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. However, we
make it clear that any of the findings rendered by the learned
Single Judge would not prejudice the right of any of the parties in
the pending appeal suits.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
27.10.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
______________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
To:
1.The District Collector
Salem District, Salem.
2.The Superintendent of Police
Salem District, Salem
3.The District Revenue Officer
Salem District, Salem.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Sangagiri,
Salem District.
5.The Tahsildar
Edapadi Taluk, Edapadi,
Salem District.
6.The Inspector of Police
Konganapuram Police Station,
Konganapouram,
Salem District.
7.The Assistant Engineer
(Operation and Maintenance),
TANGEDCO, Sannantheri,
Salem District.
8.The Village Administrative Officer
Katchupalli Village, Edapadi Taluk,
Salem District.
9.The Sub-Registrar,
Magudeanchevadi
Magudeanchevadi Post
Sangagiri Taluk,
Salem.
______________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )

W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
bbr
W.A.Nos.827 and 835 of 2025

27.10.2026
______________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )