High Court dismisses writ petition on property dispute, directs petitioner to pursue relief in civil court.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition concerning a property ownership dispute, emphasizing that the petitioner should seek relief through the civil court where a suit was pending. The court advised against invoking constitutional provisions for parallel directions, as it could disrupt the ongoing dispute resolution process. It was deemed inappropriate to issue directions through the writ petition, and the petitioner was directed to pursue necessary remedies through the civil court to protect his interests. The writ petition was found not maintainable, and no costs were awarded in its dismissal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dispute over joint ownership of property
2. Execution of power of attorney and fraudulent sale deeds
3. Representation for enquiry and disposal

Analysis:
1. The petitioner claimed joint ownership of a property inherited from his grandmother, which he possessed without interruption. After the demise of his mother and maternal uncle, he and his sisters, along with the legal heirs of his maternal uncle, were in joint possession of the property. A title dispute arose, leading the petitioner to file a suit in the District Munsif Court. Despite legal notice to the 3rd respondent and the pending civil suit, a power of attorney was executed by the 5th respondent in favor of the 7th respondent, who then executed fraudulent sale deeds in favor of respondents 8 and 9, registered by the 3rd respondent.

2. Following these events, the petitioner submitted a representation for an enquiry. However, the High Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained while a civil suit was pending. The court emphasized that the petitioner could seek interim protection through the civil court to safeguard his rights during the dispute resolution process. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for parallel directions to protect his interest was deemed inappropriate as it could escalate the dispute and impact the pending suit directly. The court advised the petitioner to obtain necessary directions from the civil court to protect his interests during the ongoing dispute.

3. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it, stating that the proper course of action for the petitioner was to seek appropriate directions from the civil court. The judgment highlighted that issuing directions in the writ petition would only complicate the dispute and interfere with the proceedings in the civil suit. No costs were awarded in the dismissal of the writ petition.

---