Allowed¶41

A.Sivasankari v. Noorul Murshitha

Madras HC9 Oct 2025WA/2287/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal allowed; Madras High Court; W.A.No.2287 of 2024; W.P.No.5934 of 2018; cancellation deed 30.08.2007 Doc.No.1755/2007; settlement deed 07.05.1986; sale deed 01.11.2016 Doc.No.2975/2016; revocation of gifts; Section 167 Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law; Section 167(1) delivery of possession pre-condition; contradictory relief; relegation to civil court; judicial review limits; property rights; registration authorities; Kattumannarkoil; Cudalore district; C.M.P.No.16095 of 2024 closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ order dated 17.04.2024 in W.P.No.5934 of 2018 set aside; Writ Appeal allowed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; parties relegated to the civil court to establish possession and the validity of the cancellation deed. ¶41

A.Sivasankari Vs Noorul Murshitha — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court's allowance of the writ petition, founded on the power to revoke gifts under Section 167 of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law, was sustainable when the same order held that delivery of possession had to be established by the fourth respondent before the civil court. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The relief granted by the writ court was contradictory: it allowed the writ petition on the ground that power of revocation of gifts is contemplated under Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law, while simultaneously holding that the fourth respondent must establish possession before the civil court.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Since delivery of possession is a pre-condition for revocation under Section 167(1) and is a matter of evidence, it was unnecessary for the writ court to allow the writ petition on the power to revoke the gift while relegating the fourth respondent to the civil court to establish possession.

¶35

Key takeaways

The dispute involves civil rights which are to be established on documents and evidence; such an exercise cannot be undertaken by the High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review, as any finding on the documents would risk mis-carriage of justice and infringement of property rights.ratio¶40
The parties are to be relegated to the civil court to establish possession at the first instance, whereafter powers under Section 167 can be exercised and the validity, if any, of the cancellation deed ascertained.ratio¶36
The writ order dated 17.04.2024 made in W.P.No.5934 of 2018 is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed, with no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq, JJ.) allowed W.A.No.2287 of 2024 and set aside the writ order dated 17.04.2024 in W.P.No.5934 of 2018. The writ petition, filed by the first respondent, had challenged a cancellation deed dated 30.08.2007 (Doc.No.1755/2007) cancelling a settlement deed dated 07.05.1986, with a consequential prayer to cancel a sale deed dated 01.11.2016 (Doc.No.2975/2016). The writ court had allowed the petition mainly on the ground that under Section 167 of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law revocation of gifts is permissible, while simultaneously holding that the question whether possession was delivered, and whether the gift was valid, had to be established by the fourth respondent in the civil court. Holding this relief contradictory — delivery of possession being a pre-condition under Section 167(1) and a matter of evidence — the Division Bench set aside the writ order and relegated the parties to the civil court to establish possession at the first instance and there determine the validity of the cancellation deed, observing that adjudication of such civil rights on documents and oral evidence cannot be undertaken by the High Court in judicial review.

¶1

W.A.No.2287 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶7

W.A.No. 2287 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.16095 of 2024

A.Sivasankari

...Appellant

Vs.

1.Noorul Murshitha

¶12

2.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the I.G. of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶13

3.The District Registrar, O/o. The District Registrar, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

¶14

4.The Sub-Registrar,

¶15

O/o. The Sub-Registrar, Kattumannarkoil Town & Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶16

5.M.Safiullah Sahib

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 17.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.5934 of 2018.

¶19

1/6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.A.No.2287 of 2024

¶22

For Appellant : Mr.C.Jagadish For Respondents : Mr.G.Balamanikandan for R1 Mr.S.Senthil Murugan, Spl.G.P for R2

¶23

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

¶26

Under assail is the writ order dated 17.04.2024 made in W.P.No.5934 of 2018.

¶27

2. The 5^th respondent in the Writ Petition is appellant before this Court. The 1^st respondent filed a writ proceeding to set aside the cancellation deed dated 30.08.2007 registered as Doc.No.1755/2007 executed by the 4^th respondent cancelling the settlement deed dated 07.05.1986. Consequential direction has been sought for to cancel the sale deed dated 01.11.2016 bearing Doc.No.2975/2016 executed by the 4^th respondent.

¶28

3. The writ Court considered the issues and allowed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that under Section 167 of the Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law, revocation of gifts are permissible and therefore cancellation deed was made in consonance with the grounds set out under Section of 167 of the Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law.

¶29

2/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

¶32

W.A.No.2287 of 2024

¶33

4. The writ Court further dealt with the issue relating to possession and

¶34

held that whether possession is taken or not and gift is valid or not has to be established by the 4^th respondent only in the civil Court. While forming an opinion that the issue relating to possession is to be adjudicated before the civil Court, allowing the Writ Petition would cause prejudice to the parties to establish their respective rights before the competent civil Court of law. On the one hand the writ Court allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that power to revocation of gifts is contemplated under Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law and on the other hand, writ Court held that 4^th respondent has to establish possession before the civil Court.

¶35

5. In this context, Section 167(1) enumerates that “a gift may be revoked by the donor at any time before delivery of possession”. When delivery of possession is a pre-condition contemplated under Law and subject matter of evidence to be taken, it would be un-necessary for the writ Court to allow the Writ Petition by considering the power to revoke the gift and relegating 4^th respondent to approach the civil Court to establish possession.

¶36

6. The relief granted is contradictory and in such circumstances, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties to approach the civil Court to establish possession at the first instance to exercise powers conferred under Section 167 and ascertain validity of the cancellation deed, if any, executed. At

¶37

3/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.A.No.2287 of 2024

¶40

---------------------------the outset, it involves the civil right and such rights are to be established based on the documents and evidences available on record. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken by High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review. In the event of any finding based on any of the documents, it would result in mis-carriage of justice and infringe the property right of the persons. Thus, parties have to approach the civil Court to establish their case based on documents and evidences including oral evidences.

¶41

7. With these observations, the writ order dated 17.04.2024 made in W.P.No.5934 of 2018 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

(S.M.S., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 09.10.2025

¶43

dsa Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶44

4/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.A.No.2287 of 2024

¶47

¶48