The withdrawal of a writ petition without leave to initiate fresh proceedings amounts to an abandonment of the claim, barring a second petition on identical grounds. Furthermore, courts should not adjudicate property title disputes or cancellation of deeds under writ jurisdiction, as these require trials in competent civil courts.

ORDER :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

These two Writ Petitions are connected with each other and, as such, are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.(MD).No.31834 of 2025 is filed by one Ganesan. The Writ Petition challenges the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the District Registrar (Administration), Kumbakonam. The said order directs the making of an endorsement that Doct.No.854 of 2014, Doct.No.1718 of 2015 and Doct.No.913 of 2019 be declared as fraudulent documents as per Section 77-A of the TAMIL NADU REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and forbears registration of any further document claiming title to these documents.

3. W.P.(MD).No.3011 of 2026 is filed praying for a declaration that the registration of the General Power of Attorney No.1 of 1996 and the Sale Deed Nos.854 of 2014, 1718 of 2015 and 913 of 2019 in respect of the properties in S.No.705/5, 705/5B1, 708/1A2 and 709/3, Melathur Third Sethi village, Papanasam taluk, Thanjavur district, be invalid or cancelled as illegal, and for further or other orders.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petitions are that the properties in question originally belonged to the father of Lilavathi, namely, Sami Ayyanayakavadiyar. It is stated that the said person died in the year 1971, leaving behind his wife, Chellammal, two sons, namely, Pichai and Krishnamoorthy, and two daughters, namely, the petitioner, Lilavathi, and one Rajalakshmi. However, after the death of the said Sami Ayyanayakavadiyar, it is seen that the patta was mutated in the name of his wife Chellammal, and his two sons, Pichai and Krishnamoorthy, leaving out the names of the daughters.

5. It is seen that the said Chellammal, wife of Sami Ayyanayakavadiyar, died on 08.08.1993. Thereafter, on 03.01.1996, the brothers of Lilavathi, namely, the said Pichai and Krishnamoorthy, executed a Power of Attorney, dated 03.01.1996, in favour of one Siddharthan, which was registered as Doct.No.4 of 1996. The said Siddharthan, in the year 2014, by a sale deed dated 19.06.2014, sold the above-mentioned properties in favour of one A.Kamaraj for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,83,000/-. The sale deed stated that the properties in question were purchased by the said Sami Ayyanayakavadiyar in 1954 and 1960 by two registered sale deeds, and that after his death, the suit property vested in the names of his legal heirs. Since his wife, Chellammal, also died on 08.08.1993, the property was inherited by the said Pichai and Krishnamoorthy, and was sold in favour of one A.Kamaraj. Thereafter, by a further sale deed dated 27.01.2015, registered as Doct.No.1718 of 2015, the said Kamaraj sold the property in favour of M. Krishnaveni. The said Krishnaveni, in turn, sold the property in favour of G.Ganesan by a document dated 02.05.2019, registered as Doct.No.913 of 2019.

6. At this stage, after the amendment to the Act with reference to the State of Tamil Nadu by incorporating Section 77-A of the Act, the petitioner, Lilavathi, presented a petition dated 24.12.2020 before the District Registrar. After enquiry, the District Registrar found that the property originally belonged to Sami Ayyanayakavadiyar. While registering the first document in Doct.No.854 of 2014, no legal heirship certificate was produced or verified. On the other hand, the legal heirship certificate issued to Chellammal shows that, apart fro