Dismissed¶¶42

A.T.Arun v. The District Registrar

Madras HC26 Feb 2026WA(MD)/227/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; Clause 15 Letters Patent; W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026; writ of mandamus; MOD dated 19.03.2025; MoD wrong description of property; 20 feet width private road; eastern boundary; T.S.No.34/2; Town Survey Ward / block AY-21; Lok Adalat Award; State Bank of India Branch Manager Tirunelveli; M/s.Asia Match Company Pvt. Ltd.; District Registrar Palayamkottai; Joint-Sub Registrar; disputed questions of facts; remedy before Civil Court; property disputes and description of property cannot be decided summarily in writ jurisdiction; appeal dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The description of the property in the document now sought to be amended has undergone scrutiny of the judicial process, and an order was passed pursuant to the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. ¶¶36

A.T.Arun Vs The District Registrar — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus could issue directing respondents 3 and 4 to execute a necessary deed deleting the wrong description of the property in the MOD dated 19.03.2025 (substituting the eastern-boundary entry with A.T.Arun's holdings of land in T.S.No.34/2, Town Survey Ward / block AY-21). +2 more

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The description of the property in the document now sought to be amended has undergone scrutiny of the judicial process, and an order was passed pursuant to the Award passed by the Lok Adalat.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

In such circumstances, the remedy of the appellant is to adjudicate his right before the Civil Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge.ratio¶¶36
Property disputes and the description of property cannot be decided summarily in the writ jurisdiction.ratio¶¶40-41
The Division Bench found no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly dismissed it, with no costs.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 26.02.2026; coram Dr. G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.; judgment by Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.). A.T.Arun appealed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Single Judge's order dated 04.12.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.20955 of 2025, which had refused a mandamus directing the Branch Manager, State Bank of India and M/s. Asia Match Company Pvt. Ltd. to execute a deed deleting the wrong description of a 20-feet-wide private road shown as the eastern boundary in the MOD dated 19.03.2025 (to be substituted with "A.T.Arun's holdings of land in T.S.No.34/2" in Town Survey Ward / block AY-21 and presented before the Joint-Sub Registrar). The Single Judge had dismissed the petition holding that disputed questions of fact were involved, adjudicable only before the Civil Court. The Division Bench held that the description in the document sought to be amended had undergone scrutiny of the judicial process pursuant to the Lok Adalat Award; the appellant's remedy is to adjudicate his right before the Civil Court; and property disputes and property descriptions cannot be decided summarily in writ jurisdiction. Writ appeal dismissed; no costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026

A.T.Arun

... Appellant

-vs-

1.The District Registrar Palayamkottai District Registrar Office Palayamkottai Thirunelveli District

¶11

2.The Joint-Sub Registrar Joint-SRO Office Palayamkottai Thirunelveli District

¶12

3.The Branch Manager State Bank of India 182E, SNH Road Tirunelveli-627 003

¶13

4.M/s.Asia Match Company Pvt. Ltd., A Company registered under Companies Act Boopathi Buildings Sivakasi ... Respondents

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶15

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

¶16

W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026

¶17

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 04.12.2025, passed in W.P.(MD) No.20955 of 2025, on the file of this Court.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.P.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash Government Advocate for R1 & R2

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

[Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶21

This writ appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 & 4 herein to execute a necessary deed by deleting the wrong description of the property in the MOD dated 19.03.2025.

¶22

2. The grievance of the appellant herein is that due to the wrong description of the boundaries in the MOD dated 19.03.2025 leading to the Award passed by the Lok Adalat, the right of the appellant herein over his property has been taken away.

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026

¶26

3. Learned Single Judge, while considering the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, has passed the following order:

¶27

“This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to execute necessary deed by deleting the wrong description of 20 feet width private road mentioned as eastern boundary in the MOD dated 19.03.2025 by substituting it as “A.T.Arun's holdings of land in T.S.No.34/2” in Town Survey Ward / block AY-21 and present it before the office of the second respondent.

¶28

2 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent has executed an MoD dated 19.03.2025by providing wrong description of the property. The petitioner now seeks to rectify the wrong entries made in the said MoD.

¶29

3 . However, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that they have not made any wrong description and that the description of the property and boundaries has been made only as per the records.

¶30

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶31

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

¶32

W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026

¶33

4 . Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, it appears that the present issue cannot be decided by this Court, since there are disputed questions of facts involved. All those facts can only be adjudicated before the Civil Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

¶34

5 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the parties concerned to approach the Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ”

¶35

4. Being not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as above, the present writ appeal is filed.

¶36

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that the description of the property in the document, which is now sought to be amended, has undergone scrutiny of the judicial process and order has been passed pursuant to the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. In such circumstances, the remedy of the appellant herein is to adjudicate his right before the Civil Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge. In

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026

¶40

the writ jurisdiction, property disputes and description of the property cannot

¶41

be decided summarily. Hence, we find no merit in this writ appeal.

¶42

6. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶43

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]

¶44

26.02.2026

¶45

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶46

krk

¶47

To:

¶48

1.The District Registrar, Palayamkottai District Registrar Office, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli District.

¶49

2.The Joint-Sub Registrar, Joint-SRO Office, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli District.

¶50

_____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶51

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

¶52

W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026

¶53

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶54

krk

¶55

W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026

¶56

26.02.2026

¶57

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶58

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 04.12.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.20955 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondents 3 & 4 to execute a deed deleting the wrong property description in the MOD dated 19.03.2025, with liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court and no order as to costs.¶¶17
Single Judge, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (on the file of this Court) · 04.12.2025
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition W.P.(MD) No.20955 of 2025 filed by the appellant seeking a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to execute a necessary deed deleting the wrong description of the 20-feet-wide private road in the MOD dated 19.03.2025.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Rectification sought: the private road shown as eastern boundary in the MOD dated 19.03.2025 to be substituted with A.T.Arun's holdings of land in T.S.No.34/2 in Town Survey Ward / block AY-21, and the deed presented before the office of the second respondent.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Fourth respondent executed the MoD dated 19.03.2025; petitioner alleged it carried a wrong description of the property and sought rectification of the wrong entries in the said MoD.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Appellant's grievance: the wrong boundary description in the MOD dated 19.03.2025 led to the Award passed by the Lok Adalat, whereby his right over his property was taken away.¶¶22
Prior proceeding
Before the Single Judge, the fourth respondent contended that no wrong description was made and that the property and boundary description followed the records.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Single Judge, upon consideration of submissions on either side, found the issue not decidable by that Court because disputed questions of fact were involved.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Single Judge held that all such facts could only be adjudicated before the Civil Court and was therefore not inclined to entertain the writ petition.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Writ petition stood dismissed with liberty to the parties concerned to approach the Civil Court; no order as to costs.¶¶34

A.T.Arun v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.T.Arun v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Abhudahir Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration

Solairaj Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

V.Chelladurai Vs The District Registrar

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Manimuthu S

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs S. Manimuthu

Jeyakumar a Vs The Revenue Tahsildar