ORDER :

P.D. Audikesavalu, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Krishnamoorthy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. J. Gunaseelan Muthiah, Learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the Respondents through video-conference and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. According to the Petitioner, property measuring an extent of 730 square feet in T.S. No. 1250 Block No. 22 Door No. 28, Poosari Street, Chinthanmani, Trichy Town, Trichy District belongs to his father, who died on 07.07.1996 and the property has devolved upon him. While so, one Chinnappan had executed a Gift Deed dated 06.12.1995 under Document No. 1913 of 1995 in favour his daughter Saroja, as if the aforesaid property belonged to him. She in turn executed Sale Deed dated 08.03.2010 under document No. 711 of 2010 in favour of one Marimuthu and Muthulakshmi through her Power Agent Dominic Xavier Selvam. Subsequently, the said Marimuthu and Muthulakshmi executed a Sale Deed dated 08.07.2011 under document No. 2858 of 2011 in favour of one Kannan. The Petitioner, on coming to know about the aforesaid transactions, had made a representation dated 24.06.2015 to the First Respondent seeking to cancel the registration of those documents and take action against the concerned persons, but there has not been any response for the same. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

3. Having regard to the relief sought by the Petitioner, it would be necessary to refer to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which reads as follows:-

"31. When cancellation may be ordered:-

(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.

(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation."

The said statutory provision in no uncertain terms enables the Petitioner to institute suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court for the relief that he wants. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 10 SCC 767, in which it has been held as follows:-

"40. ....At the same time, once the document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document. The aggrieved party can challenged the registration and validity of the document before the Civil Court...."

There is no explanation from the Petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition for not having resorted to that efficacious remedy. In this backdrop, it may be recapitulated here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CCE vs. Dunlop India Limited, (1985) 1 SCC 260, has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction, as follows:-

"3. Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutor