The High Court cannot resolve factual disputes in property ownership cases and must defer to civil courts for adjudication.

ORDER

The above writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 23.5.2024 directing the parties to work out their remedy before the competent civil court with respect to the challenge made to the documents executed on the side of the private respondents after interfering with the order passed by the District Registrar, Chengalpet dated 16.8.2023 wherein the documents were declared to be fraudulent.

2. Heard both.

3. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows :

(i) The properties (a) measuring 24 cents in S.No.53/16 and (b) measuring 7 cents in S.No.53/10A (subject properties), Thalambur Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District were originally owned by one Mrs.Samudra Rani by virtue of a partition deed dated 29.9.1950 registered as doc.No.970 of 1950 on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Thiruporur. Later, she entered into an agreement of sale with one Mr.Kothandam on 22.6.1961 agreeing to convey the subject properties. Since she did not come forward to execute the sale deed, a suit for specific performance came to be filed by the said Mr.Kothandam in O.S.No.346 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.7.1964.

(ii) In furtherance of the said decree, a sale deed dated 20.7.1967 was executed in favour of the said Mr.Kothandam and it was registered as doc.No.836 of 1967 and thereby the subject properties in S.No.164/2/3 measuring an extent of 31 cents were conveyed. Later, the subject properties were purchased by one Mr.M.J.Rajarathinam, who is none other than the father of the petitioner, vide sale deed dated 17.11.1983 registered as doc.No.2248 of 1983.

(iii) At a later point of time, the said Mr.M.J.Rajarathinam settled the subject properties in favour of the petitioner vide settlement deed dated 09.7.2014 registered as doc.No.9745 of 2014. Thus, the petitioner is claiming to be the absolute owner of the subject properties. Further, the electricity service connection and the property tax assessment were all transferred in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner had also executed a general power of attorney deed in favour of one Mr.Anishkumar Nagaraj vide the deed dated 16.8.2021 registered as doc.No.12572 of 2021.

(iv) It came to the notice of the petitioner that the property in S.No.53/16 measuring 24 cents was dealt with by one Mrs.Velankanni and 5 others claiming to be legal heirs of the said Mrs.Samudra Rani by placing reliance upon UDR patta No.417 to trace their title. They also sold an extent of 20.57 cents out of 24 cents (property in question) in S.No.53/16 in favour of the second respondent vide sale deed dated 31.1.2012 registered as doc.No.816 of 2012. This document was executed when the entire extent of 31 cents had already been sold in favour of the petitioner's father as early as 1983 itself.

(v) That apart, there is absolutely no proof to show that the said Mrs.Velankanni and others were actually the legal heirs of the said Mrs.Samudra Rani. When the transaction of the year 2012 took place, the said Mrs.Samudra Rani was very much alive and she died only on 31.5.2012 after the sale deed dated 31.1.2012 was executed in favour of the second respondent. On the strength of the sale deed executed in his favour, the second respondent entered into a sale agreement with one Mr.Lakshmanan on 10.8.2020 registered as doc.No.6746 of 2020.

(vi) The grievance of the petitioner is that the said Mrs.Samudra Rani also executed a power of attorney deed dated 21.6.2005 in favour of her grandson - one Mr.B.Amalraj registered as doc.No.1082 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar with respect to the subject properties measuring 31 cents. This was done only after the subject properties were already conveyed in favour of the said Mr.Kothandam on 20.7.1967 pursuant to the decree dated 30.7.1964 granted in the suit for specific performance.

(vii) On the strength of the power of attorney de