Revenue order concerning disputed title shall remain in abeyance pending civil court adjudication.

The appellant, who was the third respondent in the writ petition, challenged the order dated 23.06.2026 passed in W.P.(MD) No.17443 of 2026.

The first respondent had questioned, through a writ of certiorarified mandamus, the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, concerning mutation of patta relating to property bearing New Patta No.98 at Kalikappan Bit-1 Village, Karuppayurani Taluk, Madurai District.

The dispute involved title to the property and competing claims based on a Will, the validity of which was disputed by the opposing party and would require proof in accordance with law.

The learned Single Judge quashed the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order and restrained the parties from dealing with or alienating the property.

During the pendency of the writ appeal, the first respondent instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title before the District Court, Madurai, on 14.08.2026.

Whether disputed questions concerning title to the property, including the validity of the Will, should be adjudicated in writ proceedings or before the competent Civil Court?

Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order concerning mutation of patta should remain operative while the civil suit and subsequent appeals concerning title are pending?

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in issuing a direction restraining the parties from dealing with or alienating the property in the writ proceedings?

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions of title, including the proof and validity of a Will, are matters for adjudication by the competent Civil Court and are not ordinarily suitable for final determination in writ proceedings.

It further proceeded on the principle that revenue or patta proceedings do not conclusively determine title, and that the effect of an order passed by a revenue authority should ordinarily await the outcome of civil litigation where title is directly in dispute.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the identity of the property was undisputed, but the parties raised competing claims to title based on a disputed Will.

Since the Will would have to be proved in the manner recognised by law, and the first respondent had already instituted a suit for declaration of title, the Civil Court was the appropriate forum to decide the disputed facts and title issues.

Accordingly, rather than allowing the revenue order to operate during the pendency of the civil proceedings, the Court directed that it be kept in abeyance.

The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims.

It reasoned that if the plaintiff succeeded in establishing title, the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order would lose effect; if the plaintiff failed, the order would stand revived.

The Court directed that the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order dated 19.05.2026 remain in abeyance pending the decision of the civil suit and the appeals, if any, before the appropriate courts.

The Court left the disputed questions of title and the validity of the Will to be decided by the Civil Court and expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ claims.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.