AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. R. Suriyanarayanan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as Mr. So.
Paramasivam, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
The main submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the third Respondent had purchased the property in
question from the Petitioner''s brother, namely, Subramanya Raja, and that he is likely to take steps to take possession of the property in question,
which is said to be in the possession of the Petitioner.
It is also submitted that the Petitioner is a cultivating tenant under his brother. Therefore, the Petitioner has come before this Court stating that
the third Respondent is threatening the Petitioner and is attempting to cut down the crops in the property in question. Therefore, the Petitioner has
filed the present writ petition before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus to for bear the Respondents from interfering in the property in
question, in S. Nos. 107 and 115, in Theni Allinagaram, Theni District, without adopting the due process of law.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents had submitted that the Petitioner has filed a civil suit, in O.S. No. 128 of 2010, on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni, against his brother Subramanya Raja, in respect of the tenancy rights in the property in question. It has
also been stated that the third Respondent is also a party to the suit. It has been further stated that it is for the Petitioner to establish his rights in the
civil suit pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni, in O.S. No. 128 of 2010.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the Respondents and on a perusal of
the records available, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the Petitioner, in the present writ
petition. It is noted that the Petitioner has filed a civil suit, in O.S. No. 128 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni, with regard to
the tenancy rights, in respect of the property in question.
In such circumstances, it is not open to the Petitioner to seek a similar relief before this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Such factual issues would have to be decided by the Civil Court concerned based on the available evidence, both oral, as well as documentary. As
such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.