The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a competent Civil Court to decide on the validity of property deeds and the issue of title and possession, rather than the administrative or constitutional authorities.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: These Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records W.P(MD).Nos.8363, 7433, 8792 and 8564 of 2012 relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Ne.Mu.No.7878/2008/N dated 01.04.2011 and the consequential impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.23295/2009 dated 09.05.2012 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.)

Common Order

1. The above writ petitions have been filed challenging an order passed by the first respondent herein under which the Patta standing in the name of the writ petitioners were cancelled and the same was restored in the name of the fourth respondent herein. The writ petitioners also challenge the consequential order passed by the second respondent herein.

2.The fourth respondent herein who is the original owner of the property had executed a registered general power of attorney on 27.11.1982 in respect of all her properties in favour of her husband namely R.G.Mani. Based upon the said power deed, the said R.G.Mani has executed a registered sale deed on 04.08.1995 in favour of his brother R.G.Shanmugakani. The said R.G.Shanmugakani has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the writ petitioners. Thus, the petitioners claim title and possession to the property in dispute having purchased the same on various dates from the said R.G.Shanmugakani.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that certain disputes arose between the fourth respondent and her husband R.G.Mani and the fourth respondent has executed a cancellation deed, cancelling the power of attorney and the same was presented for registration on 08.08.1995. Hence, according to the petitioners, after R.G.Mani has executed a sale deed in favour of her vendor R.G.Shanmugakani on 04.08.1995, the power deed in favour of R.G.Mani was cancelled. Thereafter, the fourth respondent herein had filed O.S.No.194 of 1995 before the District Munsif Court, Madurai as against her husband R.G.Mani and the purchaser namely R.G.Shanmugakani for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the disputed property. After trial, the suit was dismissed on 13.09.1996 on the ground that the fourth respondent has not established her possession over the disputed property. The petitioners had further contended that the fourth respondent herein had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his son namely the third respondent herein under Document No.1013 of 2007. Based upon the said settlement deed, the third respondent had filed an appeal before the first respondent herein for cancellation of Patta standing in the name of the writ petitioners.

4. The first respondent herein after hearing the parties, arrived at a conclusion that in O.S.No.194 of 1995, the Civil Court has arrived at a finding that Vanmathi (R4) is the original owner of the property. The first respondent has further held that since the power deed has been cancelled and thereafter, the power agent has executed a sale deed in favour of his brother, the sale deed in favour of R.G.Shanmugakani is not valid. Since the sale deed in favour of the R.G.Shanmugakani is not valid, the purchase made by the petitioners from the said R.G.Shanmugakani are also not valid. On the other hand, based upon the settlement deed executed by her mother, the fourth respondent has claimed title.

5. The first respondent had further held that the writ petitioners had purchased the property without properly perusing the encumbrance certificate. Hence, the Patta that was originally granted in favour of the writ petitioners were cancelled and it was restored in the name of the fourth respondent. The second respondent has passed a consequential order implementing the said order of the first respondent. Both these order are under challenge in the present writ