JUDGMENT :

T. Raja, J. & T.V. Thamilselvi, J.

(Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.01.2016 made in W.P.No.33462 of 2014.)

These writ appeals have been filed by the appellants, the respondents 5 & 6 in the writ petition, challenging the impugned order dated 4.1.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.33462 of 2014, allowing the writ petition as prayed for, resultantly, quashing the sale deed registered on 5.7.2007 by the Sub Registrar, Alandur and further directing him to remove the revenue entries made therein.

2. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.59 of 2016, assailing the impugned order, heavily argued that the writ petition filed by Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited represented by its Manager seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 5.7.2007 bearing Document No.2179 of 2007 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Alandur, Chennai in the name of the appellant in Writ Appeal No.60 of 2016, is not legally maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the writ petitioner cannot seek to establish any right before the writ Court under Article 226 on the basis of the alleged assignment of debt/loan, because when the right, title and interest of the writ petitioner to claim or enforce the debt itself is in dispute, the proper legal course would be to file a civil suit to establish its rights, claim, interest or status as contemplated under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act seeking declaratory and other consequential reliefs, as already three forums have repeatedly reiterated that the writ petitioner should approach only the competent civil Court. When the respondents 4 & 5 herein had already conveyed the property in favour of the sixth respondent herein through the appellant as their power of attorney agent and the sixth respondent herein had valid right, title and interest to the property, if there is any dispute with regard to the title, the writ petitioner should have approached the competent civil Court. When the predecessors-in-title Loganatha Reddiyar had exercised the right of ownership over the property under Patta No.7 and executed a registered mortgage deed dated 20.9.1929 vide Document No.1631 of 1929 in favour of Sriramulu Reddiyar, thereafter the said Loganatha Reddiyar executed a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1937 bearing Document No.2061 of 1937 in favour of Sriramulu Reddiyar, who is the father of the fourth respondent herein and subsequently in the year 1943, the said Sriramulu Reddiyar settled the property in favour of Lalithakumari alias Lalitha Manohari and K.S.Deenadayalu Reddy, which was subsequently revoked by him in the year 1949, however, after the demise of Sriramulu Reddiyar, the property devolved upon his son and grandson, the respondents 4 & 5 herein. As a matter of fact, K.S.Deenadayalu Reddy had been exercising the right of ownership over the property and paying the urban land tax and patta was also issued in his favour and subsequently, the respondents 4 & 5 herein had executed a power of attorney dated 23.8.2006 in favour of the appellant Mr.S.P.Velayutham and also an unregistered power of attorney on 7.6.2007, based on which the appellant executed a sale deed dated 5.7.2007 bearing Document No.2179 of 2007 in favour of the sixth respondent. The revenue authorities also have recognised the right, title and interest over the property and the possession thereof and mutation of the names also have been recorded and effected in the revenue records in favour of the sixth respondent and based on the title deeds and the revenue records, the sixth respondent has been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, the writ petitioner till date has not questioned or challenged the title or ownership of the property in question before the competent civil Court by filing a civil suit. Mr.V.Raghavachari also contended that wh