(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC read with Section 114 of CPC to review and recall the order dated 29.04.2026 made in W.P.(MD) No.13389 of 2026 and consequently cancel the registration of document No.2935/2026 on 11.05.2026, before the 2nd respondent and also cancel all proceedings in furtherance of the order and pass such further or other appropriate orders.)

The liquidator of M.H.13, Perarignar Anna Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Ltd, Sakampatti, Andipatti, who is a third party to W.P. (MD) No.13389 of 2026, has filed this review application to review and recall the order dated 29.04.2026 passed in W.P. (MD) No.13389 of 2026.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the review application are that the 1st respondent herein, viz., P.Raman, filed W.P.(MD) No.13389 of 2026, challenging the refusal check slip dated 20.04.2026, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Andipatti (the 3rd respondent in the review application), refusing to register the release deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 16.04.2026. A submission was made on behalf of the Writ Petitioner (1st respondent herein) that the property originally stood in the name of one Govindarasulu Naidu; even as on the date of the Writ Petition, the revenue records were in the same name and had not been mutated thereafter.

3. The Writ Petitioner’s mother purchased the property by way of an unregistered sale deed dated 29.06.1942, as the value of the property was less than Rs.100/-, that is, the sale was for a sum of Rs.90/-. The Writ Petitioner’s mother worked as a menial in a burial ground and, due to her limited knowledge, did not take steps to have the revenue records mutated. When the Writ Petitioner’s mother had died, the Writ Petitioner's sister released her share in his favour by executing a release deed. The said release deed was refused on the ground that no registered parent document had been produced.

4. Considering the reason stated in the refusal check slip and the plea that the value of the property was only Rs.100/-, registration was not mandatory; this Court set aside the refusal check slip, directed the re-presentation of the said document, and further directed registration of the deed upon re-presentation. The present application seeks to review the said order.

5. It is the case of the Review Applicant that the Applicant – Co-operative Society purchased a piece of land measuring 40 cents in Survey No.491/2 at Andipatti Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.892/1975. The land originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family consisting of two brothers, viz., Venkitasamy Naidu and Govindarasulu Naidu. The said Govindarasulu Naidu died in the year 1935. The surviving coparcener in the family, viz., Venkitasamy Naidu, had conveyed the property to Andal Saliyar Weavers Co-operative Society, Jakkampatty, under a registered exchange deed.

6. The Applicant – Society acquired that land from Andal Saliyar Weavers Co-operative Society, Jakkampatty, through a registered sale deed bearing No.892 of 1975, dated 09.05.1975. They are in possession and enjoyment of that land. Subsequently, the Applicant's land was sub-divided as Survey No.491/2B. The Writ Petitioner took the land on rent from the Applicant and was paying the rent. After some time, he defaulted in payment and gave a letter of undertaking dated 14.11.2003, undertaking to vacate the land. Thereafter, a notice dated 02.02.2005 was served on him to vacate, and subsequently a police complaint was lodged on 01.12.2005. Even before the police, he gave an undertaking that he would vacate the premises by 31.12.2005. The Writ Petitioner did not vacate; therefore, a registered notice dated 15.03.2011 was issued. In this regard, O.S.No.171 of 2005 was filed by the Writ Petitioner against the Applicant - Co-operative Society, and the same is pending.

7. One R.Balamurugan, son of the Writ Petitioner, was paying rent, and due receipts were also given for the period 10.01.2020 to 15.02.2020, etc. Since there was a default in payment of rent, a notice was served on 18.11.2025. Suppressing all the above, the Writ Petition is filed as if there was an unregistered purchase, and the order under review was passed.

8. In fact, the person who is alleged to have executed the unregistered sale deed in favour of the Writ Petitioner’s mother died in 1935 itself, and therefore the unregistered sale deed could not have been executed in 1942. Thus, the Writ Petitioner has committed a wholesale fraud on the Court to obtain the order, and the review application is liable to be allowed.

9. I have heard Mr.T.Ravichandran, the learned counsel for the Review Applicant, who reiterated the above grounds.

10. Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, the learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner / 1st respondent, would submit that the property in question, originally comprised in Survey No. 491, measuring 2.65 acres, was owned by one Ramasamy Naidu, S/o.Subba Naidu. On 29.07.1931, he conveyed the said property to another Ramasamy Naidu, S/o.Venkatasamy Naidu. On 09.01.1935, the said Ramasamy Naidu, S/o.Venkatasamy Naidu, conveyed the lands measuring Acres 2.65 cents to two brothers, viz., Venkatasamy Naidu and Govindarasulu, S/o.Lingasamy. On 29.06.1942, Venkatasamy Naidu and Govindarasulu divided the property equally between themselves; as such, they each received Acre 1.32.5 cents under the document dated 29.06.1942. Govindarasulu conveyed 40 cents out of his half portion to Perumayee.

11. It is stated that 40 cents is situated in the north-eastern portion of Survey No.491. Since the document was of value less than Rs.100/-, it was not registered. It must be noted that the said Govindarasulu has not sold any excess over his 1/2 share. On 17.07.1947, the other brother, Venkatasamy, exchanged an area of 79 cents in Survey No.491/2 with Andal Saliyar Weavers Co-operative Society. From the description of the property, it is clear that this portion lies on the southern side, and the document also shows the northern boundary, with the balance land retained by the said Venkatasamy.

12. The said Andal Saliyar Weavers Co-operative Society, by a registered sale deed dated 09.05.1975, sold only the said 79 cents to the Perarignar Anna Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Ltd, which is now claimed by the Perarignar Anna Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Ltd, the Review Applicant herein. Therefore, both extents of land are available on the ground, and without seeking subdivision or demarcation of the boundaries, the Applicant has filed the present Review Application seeking review of the order directing registration of the document.

13. The learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in E.Achuthan Nair Vs. P.Narayanan Nair and Anr. ((1987) 4 SCC 71) to contend that disputes regarding the location of the boundary separating adjacent lands of different owners may arise more specifically when portions of a survey field are transferred or allotted to different persons without mentioning the linear measurements. This is one such case. Therefore, when the grounds raised in the review are related to disputed questions of title, there is no question of stopping the Writ Petitioner from registering the document.

14. I have considered the rival submissions on both sides and perused the material records of the case.

15. The Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent was allowed by this Court only on the ground that, when the value of the sale deed executed in favour of Perumayee was less than Rs.100/-, registration was not compulsory, and therefore the refusal order could not have been passed. Firstly, when the unregistered sale deed is said to have been executed in the year 1942, along with the additional typed set of papers, a communication of the Sub-Registrar dated 07.08.2026 is produced before this Court, showing that the said Govindarasulu Naidu died on 10.05.1935, that is, years before the alleged purchase by the Writ Petitioner’s mother. Therefore, a prima facie doubt has been created regarding the sale deed said to have been executed in 1942. Further, it can be seen that as early as on 11.06.2016, the Society had issued a legal notice to the Writ Petitioner, asking him to vacate, and thereafter the Writ Petitioner had paid rents on several occasions, and the receipts are enclosed along with the Review Application.

16. Even though the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner now contends that there may be two adjacent parcels of land for which the Writ Petitioner and the Applicant may possess title, no such reply was given to the legal notice. Much less, in view of the extensive proceedings and contentions between the parties, the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition did not even hint at the dispute.

17. Considering the instant case, where the Applicant is said to have been in possession of only one extent of land, and the Writ Petitioner as well as his son has paid rents on various dates, and now it is contended to be different extents, it has to be concluded that these facts as to the alleged tenancy and the rival claim made by the Applicant herein would be very material to the plea made in the Writ Petition.

18. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable in nature and can be refused if the material facts are suppressed. Inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner had totally suppressed the dispute with the Applicant’s Society, the Writ Petition is bound to fail. Therefore, the order passed in W.P. No. 13389 of 2026 is liable to be recalled, and it will be open for the Writ Petitioner to approach the Civil Court to claim that there can be demarcation, if any, and to contest the truth or otherwise of the unregistered sale deed. The order directing the Sub-Registrar to register the document and the consequential registration, if any, cannot stand.

19. In view thereof, this Review Application stands allowed, and the order dated 29.04.2026 passed in W.P.(MD) No.13389 of 2026 stands reviewed and recalled. The W.P.(MD) No.13389 of 2026 shall stand dismissed; however, the Writ Petitioner shall have liberty to approach the Civil Court for establishing his title and for the registration of the document of release, subject to the ultimate decree, if any, passed by the Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.