BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.A.(MD) No.227 of 2026 A.T.Arun ... Appellant -vs-

1.The District Registrar Palayamkottai District Registrar Office Palayamkottai Thirunelveli District

2.The Joint-Sub Registrar Joint-SRO Office Palayamkottai Thirunelveli District

3.The Branch Manager State Bank of India

182E, SNH Road Tirunelveli-627 003

4.M/s.Asia Match Company Pvt. Ltd., A Company registered under Companies Act Boopathi Buildings Sivakasi ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 04.12.2025, passed in W.P.(MD) No.20955 of 2025, on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash Government Advocate for R1 & R2

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

This writ appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 & 4 herein to execute a necessary deed by deleting the wrong description of the property in the MOD dated 19.03.2025.

2. The grievance of the appellant herein is that due to the wrong description of the boundaries in the MOD dated 19.03.2025 leading to the Award passed by the Lok Adalat, the right of the appellant herein over his property has been taken away.

3. Learned Single Judge, while considering the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, has passed the following order:

“This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to execute necessary deed by deleting the wrong description of 20 feet width private road mentioned as eastern boundary in the MOD dated 19.03.2025 by substituting it as “A.T.Arun's holdings of land in T.S.No.34/2” in Town Survey Ward / block AY-21 and present it before the office of the second respondent.

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent has executed an MoD dated 19.03.2025by providing wrong description of the property. The petitioner now seeks to rectify the wrong entries made in the said MoD.

3.However, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that they have not made any wrong description and that the description of the property and boundaries has been made only as per the records.

4.Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, it appears that the present issue cannot be decided by this Court, since there are disputed questions of facts involved. All those facts can only be adjudicated before the Civil Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the parties concerned to approach the Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ”

4. Being not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as above, the present writ appeal is filed.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that the description of the property in the document, which is now sought to be amended, has undergone scrutiny of the judicial process and order has been passed pursuant to the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. In such circumstances, the remedy of the appellant herein is to adjudicate his right before the Civil Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge. In the writ jurisdiction, property disputes and description of the property cannot be decided summarily. Hence, we find no merit in this writ appeal.

6. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]

26.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk To:

1.The District Registrar, Palayamkottai District Registrar Office, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli District.

2.The Joint-Sub Registrar, Joint-SRO Office, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli District.

DR.G.JAY