Madras High Court
A.Vimalarani vs The Sub-Registrar on 17 January, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.1495 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.(MD) No.1495 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1091 and 1092 of 2025
A.Vimalarani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub-Registrar,
Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District.
2. M.Chinnathai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent herein through letter in Na.Ka.No.
782/2024 dated 23.12.2024 in respect of the pending settlement deed
No.P47/2024 on the file of the 1st respondent herein for the property situated at
Survey No.236/B1, Kovilpatti Village & Taluk, Thoothukudi District and quash
the same as illegal and consequently direct them to give sufficient time to the
petitioner to get injunction order from the civil court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1495 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arikaran
For R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
to quash the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 23.12.2024
bearing Na.Ka.No.782/2024 and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to give
sufficient time to the petitioner to get injunction order from the Civil Court.
2. Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on
behalf of the 1st Respondent.
3. With consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal at the time of admission itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of this
Writ Petition, are as follows:-
The Petitioner's father had purchased the property measuring an extent of
16.48 cents comprised in Survey No.236/B1, Kovilpatti Village & Taluk,
Thoothukudi District, in the name of the Petitioner's mother vide registered
Sale Deed dated 21.03.1988 bearing Document No.775/1988. Since then the
Petitioner's family members were in possession and enjoyment of the subject
property. The 2nd Respondent who is one of the sisters of the Petitioner herein
with a malafide intention had tried to grab the subject property. For which, she
had created a fabricated document and obtained Patta in Patta No.948 and 949 on
19.09.2024. On the basis of the said Patta, the 2nd Respondent obtained her
mother's signature and attempted to settle the property in her own favour.
Therefore, the Petitioner has made an objection before the 1st Respondent on
03.10.2024. Thereafter, the Petitioner, her brother and her sisters have filed a Suit
for permanent injunction in O.S.No.158 of 2024 before the learned District
Munsif Court Kovilpatti and also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2024, which is pending. Meanwhile, on 22.10.2024, the 1st Respondent conducted
an enquiry, wherein the Petitioner stated that the above Suit was pending. Without
going into the facts of the case the 1st Respondent issued proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.782/2024 dated 23.12.2024 stating that he need a Court order to stop
the registration. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner is before this Court.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
1st Respondent on instructions would submit that the 1st Respondent registered the
Settlement Deed executed by the mother of the Writ Petitioner in favour of the
2nd Respondent on 10.01.2025 in Document No.330/2025.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would submit
that liberty may be granted to the Petitioner to challenge the Document registered
by the 1st Respondent.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner, her sisters and her brother
were filed a Civil suit in O.S.No.158 of 2024, on the file of the learned District
Munsif Court, Kovilpatti for seeking the relief of permanent injunction against
the writ petitioner's father, mother, brother and sister i.e., M.Chinnathai, the
second respondent herein. It is seen from the records that admittedly, the Sub-
Registrar, Kovilpatti is not shown as a party in the pending suit in O.S.NO.158 of
2024 or in the interlocutory application filed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.158
of 2024 for seeking the relief of temporary injunction. The suit and the
interlocutory application are still pending for adjudication. It is settled law that a
regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to
property rights between the private persons. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshina.T vs. Abdul
Azees K.T. and Others, vide Judgement dated 03.12.2018 in Civil Appeal No.
11759 of 2018 held as follows:-
“14. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of
fact and could be answered one way or the other only by
the Civil Court in a properly constituted civil suit and on
the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in
a writ petition filed under Artcile 226 of the Constitution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the High Court.
15. It has been consistently held by this Court that a
regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of
the disputes relating to property rights between the
private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution shall not be available except where violation
of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is
alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue
appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is
held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional
jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which
remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are
available. This Court has held that it is not intended to
replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or
application available to an aggrieved person. The
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being
special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised
casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See
Mohan Pande vs. Usha Rani, 1992 (4) SCC 61 and
Dwarka Prasad Agrawal vs BD Agrawal, (2003) 6 SCC
230)
16. In our view, the Writ Petition to claim such relief was
not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved
dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an
alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by respondent No.1
(writ petitioner) in the Civil Court.”
9. By applying the ratio laid down in the judgment cited supra, the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be available, except where
violation of some statutory duty on the part of the statutory authority is alleged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Considering the submission made on either side, the cause of action for
filing the present Writ Petition became infructuous, since the settlement deed was
registered by the 1st respondent on 10.01.2025. No direction could be granted as
against the 1st respondent. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at
liberty to work out her remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 17.01.2024
Internet : Yes / No
rgm
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
rgm
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1091 and 1092 of 2025
17.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
