JUDGMENT :

Vineet Kothari, J.

This Appeal has been filed by the appellants P.Rukumani, P.Rangasamy, P.Velusamy and P.Maruthachalam aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.09.2017 in W.P.No. 6329 of 2009 filed by one Amudhavalli, Manonmani and H.Jayakumar against the Sub Registrar, Coimbatore and the present four appellants and also against K.Pandian, husband of respondent No.1 Amudhavalli and D.Saravanan, the subsequent purchaser and R.Balasubramaniam, subsequent agreement holder of D.Saravanan.

2. The Writ Petition was filed by Amudhavalli, Manonmani, H.Jayakumar, seeking cancellation of cancellation Deed dated 25.09.2007 by which the Sale Deed dated 09.03.2005 in favour of the respondents on the ground that the respondent No. 5 K.Pandian, husband of Amudhavalli, had misused the Power of Attorney given to him by the present Appellants and he executed the Sale Deed in question on 09.03.2005 in favour of his own wife Amudhavalli and two others. The said sale deed dated 09.03.2005 was therefore cancelled by them on 20th September 2007. The said Cancellation Deed was offered for registration before the Sub Registrar, Coimbatore and was also registered. This registration was challenged by the writ petitioners Amudhavalli and two others before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the said writ petitioners with the following observations:-

"26. The only remedy is for the purchaser to re-convey the land purchased by them. If the purchaser fails to re-convey the property to the seller or the owner, the remedy to the owner is to knock at the doors of the Civil Court. The contention of respondents 2 to 5 that the Writ Petition is not maintainable may not be correct, as it is an admitted position that a Deed of Cancellation was made without the consent of the petitioners and this Court is empowered to exercise such extraordinary jurisdiction in interfering with the cancellation of Sale Deed. Hence, I find much force in the contentions of the writ petitioners and the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the Cancellation Deed dated 20.09.2007 executed by respondents 2 to 5 and registered by the 1st respondent as Document No.5824 of 2007.

27. Before parting with, this Court makes it very clear that if respondents 2 to 5 are aggrieved by any other action done by the 6th respondent fraudulently or in any manner that he has colluded with the petitioners, the observation in this order will not preclude them from agitating all the issues before the appropriate forum, where the civil suits are pending and the same yardstick will apply to the 8th respondent, who has admittedly purchased the property from the 7th respondent, after the Deed of Cancellation.

28. Last, but not the least, this Court observes that wherever suits are pending, such Courts are expected to take up the cases and proceed with the same on a day-to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point of time, as the Sale Deed in question is of the year 2005 and that the cancellation of Sale Deed is of the year 2007 and more than a decade had passed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are closed."

3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein P.Rukumani and others have filed the present Writ Appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2016 (10) SCC 767 and submitted that the parties aggrieved by a fraudulent sale deed could cancel the deed and seek registration of such Cancellation Deed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 Mr.M.Sriram relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India Ltd., Vs. Hadeeja Ammal and others, 2011 (2) CTC 1 wherein the Full Bench of this Court held as under:-

"59. After giving our anxious consideration on the questions raised in the instant