J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.)

The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants laying challenge to the order of the writ Court dated 25.06.2021 passed in W.P.No.11651 of 2021, wherein and whereby, the direction sought for to the first respondent to instruct the second respondent not to register any kind of document in respect of the properties which are subject matter of O.S.No.280 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, was negatived.

2. The case of the appellants is that they formed a partnership firm along with the fourth respondent and commenced business on 03.02.2015. In the course of their business, when they wanted to develop a property as a layout, which was owned by the fifth respondent, after advancing huge sums of money to him, they also inducted him in the partnership firm. Alleging that the fourth and fifth respondents have not accounted the advances received for the sale of the plots, the appellants instituted a suit in O.S.No.280 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, seeking a direction to the third defendant therein, who is the fourth respondent herein, to dissolve the partnership business carried on in the name and style of Sai.Saranya Developers and Promoters for the suit property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from entertaining, registering, creating encumber over the suit properties. In spite of the same, the fourth respondent herein, the third defendant, has been receiving sale consideration from the prospective buyers, which forced the appellants to serve a notice on the first respondent herein marking copy to the second respondent and other private respondents seeking, inter alia, to cancel the sale deed executed by the fourth respondent. The alleged inaction on the part of the official respondents culminated into the filing of the writ petition seeking the above said relief and the dismissal of the same led to the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned State Government Counsel and perused the materials placed before this Court. In view of the order that we propose to pass, no notice is ordered to the private respondents.

4. Admittedly, there is a dispute among the partners in the partnership firm. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellants also make it amply clear that they are all matter for trial and the writ Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue the directions, as sought for by the writ petitioners - the appellants herein, to resolve such disputes in the partnership firm. The appellants cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction, merely adding the statutory authorities as parties and seeking a direction to them not to discharge their statutory duties, without taking recourse to the appropriate remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure, which the appellant had rightly taken by filing the suit in O.S.No.280 of 2021, as indicated in the narration of facts.

5. It is for the registering authorities to follow the law governing the subject such as Registration Act and rules made thereon, including the amendments made from time to time and also the guidelines and circulars of the Department, which are in tune with the Statute and for any failure, they have to subject themselves for appropriate action by the Department, so also the statutory authorities.

6. This Court reminiscences of the ordinary rule in contract jurisprudence “Caveat emptor". Applying the said maxim, it is unequivocably clear that it is the bounden duty of the purchaser to make all such necessary enquiries and to ascertain all the facts relating to the property to be purchased prior to committing in any manner. Of-course, the fourth respondent is liable for her acts and deeds, if she breaches the terms of the partnership deed, but the appellants cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction to p