High Court dismissed W.P. seeking Writ of Certiorari to quash Registration Authority order. Court held property dispute is civil; petitioners must approach Civil Court for title declaration before claiming exclusive rights.
Writ of Certiorari dismissed. Petitioners directed to approach appropriate Civil Court as per impugned order.
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.
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.11485, 11486 and 11489 of 2022
1.M.Muthukumar
2.N.Meyyappan ... Petitioners
/vs./
Madurai 630 609.
1/8
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022
4.Uma ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the impugned order of the 1st Respondent bearing Na.Ka. No.2633/AA4/2022 dated 20.06.2022 and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.K.K.Samy
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent dated 20.06.2022 in his proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.2633/AA4/2022, the petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of Writ of Certiorari to quash the said order.
below set out.
2/8
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022
3/8
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022
favour of his son, M.Muthukumar, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9690 of 2018 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property since then.
4/8
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022
the fourth respondent had filed an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent had held that the fourth respondent possessed a settlement deed and a registered Will in her favour in respect of 8167.50 sq.ft., and the first respondent had thereafter directed the third respondent to make remark in the encumbrance certificate that the settlement deed was fraudulent document and further directed the third respondent not to entertain the document in respect of the said property on the basis of the settlement deed. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
5/8
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022
the property. The petitioners ought to have approached the civil Court to declare their exclusive right to the entire property. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of the documents that has been presented before the authority. Till such time as the petitioners have their title declared to the entirety in respect of the entire property, they cannot claim the portion that has been settled in favour of the fourth respondent's husband. The second respondent has rightly passed the impugned order and I see no reason to interfere with the same.
| Speaking | : Yes / No | 19.10.2024 |
|---|---|---|
| NCC | : Yes / No | |
| Internet | : Yes / No | |
| Index | : Yes / No |
6/8
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022
To
7/8
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.15905 of 2022
19.10.2024
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the Registration Authority's order directing the arbitral nature of a property title dispute?
Whether the petitioners must approach the Civil Court to declare their title before claiming exclusive rights to the property?
Whether the impugned order holding the matter as a civil dispute requiring Civil Court litigation is sustainable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Muthukumar. N.Meyyappan
The Appellate Authority cum Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Madurai Zone
The District Registrar (Administration), Karaikudi
The Joint Sub Registrar -2, Karaikudi
Uma
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
