Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 21448 Mad
Judgement Date : 11 November, 2024
W.P.(MD) No.19668 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD) No.19668 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.14176 and 14177 of 2016
Shanmuga Velammal ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tirunelveli District.
2.K.Maheswari
3.Jeyalakshmi
4.The District Registrar (Administration),
Tenkasi,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to
the Registered Sale Deed in Document Number 647 of 2016 dated 09.03.2016
registered by the 1st Respondent for the Sale Transaction entered between the 2nd
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19668 of 2016
and 3rd Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st
Respondent to cancel all the related entries in the Registration Documents
pertaining to the Sale Transaction entered between the 2nd and 3rd Respondent
and registered by the 1st Respondent vide Document Number 647 of 2016 dated
09.03.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh
For R1 & R4 : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For R3 : Mr.F.X.Eugene
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is seeking to quash the registered sale deed
bearing Doc.No.647/2016 dated 09.03.2016 on the file of the first respondent
herein.
2. It is well settled law that the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be exercised in such matters, when there are other
remedies available to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment
reported in 2016 10 SCC 767 (Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of M.P. and others)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had dealt with this identical issue and had held that the remedy available in such
cases would be to invoke the civil jurisdiction.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however would contend that in
spite of an injunction order granted in CMP.Nos.7107 and 7108 of 2001 in
S.A.No.687 of 2001, the second respondent had executed a sale deed in favour of
the third respondent. Hence, the sale deed itself is in violation of the injunction
order. It is also admitted by the learned counsel appearing on either side that the
petitioner had already initiated a contempt proceeding for violation of the order of
injunction stated supra.
4. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2016 10
SCC 767 (referred supra), the writ petition cannot be entertained. However,
liberty is given to the petitioner to proceed with the contempt petition that he had
already initiated for complaining violation of the order passed in CMP.Nos.7107
and 7108 of 2001 in S.A.No.687 of 2001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. With the aforesaid liberty, no further adjudication is required to be made
in this writ petition and the Writ Petition is accordingly closed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
Index : Yes / No 11.11.2024
Internet : Yes / No
mm
To
1.The Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The District Registrar (Administration), Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
mm
11.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!