Petitioner challenged registration of a release deed under Article 226 Article 226. Court held petitioner cannot seek writ to cancel registration; remedy lies in civil suit under Section 31 Specific Relief Act 1963.
Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to institute suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 34198 of 2019 and W.M.P. No. 34828 of 2019
P. Neelaveni
... Petitioner
Vs.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Second and Third Respondents to cancel the release deed vide document No. 24/1989 dated 19.09.1989 on the file of the Third Respondent as the same was executed in fraudulent manner, which didn't contain the survey No., and extent of the property and location of the property.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Rajendiran
For Respondents: Mr. R. Venkatesh Government Advocate (For R1) Mr. T.M. Pappiah Special Government Pleader (For R2&R3)
O R D E R
When it is pointed out by Mr. T.M. Pappiah, Learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the Second and Third Respondents that the Petitioner cannot call upon the Registering Authority to cancel registration of a document
executed between some other persons relating to the property claimed to be owned by him and his remedy in that regard is to institute suit in the jurisdictional Civil Court invoking Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Muppudathi Pillai -vs- Krishnaswami Pillai (AIR 1960 Madras 1), while considering Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (corresponding to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963), which has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in P. Rukumani -vs- Amudhavalli (Judgment dated 17.07.2019 in W.A. No. 229 of 2018), Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to resort to the same and he has made an endorsement to that effect, which is recorded.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
maya
To
W.P. No. 34198 of 2019
BR(CO) GMY(02/01/2020)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the registry to cancel a registration of an disputed document instead of filing a civil suit.
Whether Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the exclusive remedy to challenge a registered document.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muppudathi Pillai -vs- Krishnaswami PillaiDistinguished¶18
AIR 1960 Madras 1 · Who else cites this
P. Rukumani -vs- AmudhavalliDistinguished¶18
W.A. No. 229 of 2018 (Judgment dated 17.07.2019)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Neelaveni
The Tahsildar Gangavalli Taluk Salem District
The District Registrar Salem District Salem.
The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Gangavalli Salem District.
Soundar
P.D. Audikesavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.D. Audikesavalu
Parties & counsel
