R786 Tiruchirappalli Cooperative House Construction Society Limited v. P R Ravichandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.295 of 2026 R.786, Tiruchirappalli Cooperative House Construction, Society Limited, (Makkal Mandram), No.33, Colony Main Road, Thillainagar, Tiruchirappalli-620 018, Represented through its Secretary, T.Ramar.
...Appellant Vs.
1.P.R.Ravichandran 2.The Regional Deputy Registrar (Housing), Trichy Region, No.16/3, Samathu School Street, Khaja Nagar, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Administrator/Cooperative Sub Registrar, R.786, Tiruchirappalli Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd., No.33, Colony Main Road, Thillainagar, Tiruchirappalli-620 018.
4.The Sub Registrar, Thillainagar Sub Registrar Office, Thillainagar, Tiruchirappalli.
... Respondents 1/6
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.27341 of 2025 dated 11.11.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sekar for Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan (R2 to R4) Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) The fourth respondent in the writ petition, who is the Secretary of Thiruchirappalli Cooperative House Construction Society Limited, is before this court by way of this intra court appeal, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.27341 of 2025.
2.The first respondent in the present appeal filed a writ petition seeking for a mandamus to direct the appellant herein to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the property situated in Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli Taluk, Uraiyur SRO, Old Ward No.3, Block No. 4, Tiruchirappalli Town, Thillainagar north-east extension, which is a layout promoted by the appellant Society. The plot measuring 7236 sq.ft. was allotted to A.S.Subramania Ayyar under allotment letter dated 2/6
27.12.1962 by the Society. He has paid the entire dues and had obtained clearance certificate dated 05.04.1975. Thereafter, the said Subramania Ayyar has sold the property to one Radhakrishnan, who is the father of the petitioner on 31.07.1975. The said sale deed is a registered document. 3.After purchase, the father of the petitioner has put up a house after obtaining necessary building permission and he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. On 27.04.2009, the father of the petitioner, namely, Radhakrishnan has settled the property in favour of his son/writ petitioner. The settlement deed is also a duly registered document.
4.The promoter of the layout, namely Thiruchirappalli Cooperative Housing Construction, Society Limited, had not conveyed the sale deed in favour of his allottee, namely A.Subramaniya Ayyar. However, the allotment order and the clearance certificate issued by the Society in favour of A.Subramaniya Ayyar clearly indicates that the property is vested with A.Subramaniya Ayyar and subsequently by virtue of sale deed, it has been conveyed to T.Radhakrishnan and later, devolved upon the writ petitioner through the settlement deed executed 3/6
by his father. In such circumstances, when the writ petitioner sought for execution of conveyance deed in his favour, the Society has failed to execute the said deed. Hence, the writ petition was filed. 5.The learned Single Judge after considering the documents and pleadings, relied upon a similar case in which, judgment has been rendered in favour of the writ petitioner holding that in case of death of the original allottee, the Society has to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the person, upon whom the property is devolved either through conveyance or through devolution. Following the said judgement, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant herein to execute the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner after confirming the position that the writ petitioner is the successor in interest of the original allottee by verifying the documents.
6.The instant intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant Society contending that the appellant has no document to verify whether the writ petitioner is a successor in title to the original allottee, namely Subramania Ayyar, and therefore, it is impossible for them to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge.
4/6
7.This court finds no force in the submission made by the appellant. When admittedly, registered documents are available to show how the property had been conveyed from the original allottee. Namely Subramania Ayyar and when there is no rival claim or dispute over the title, there can be no impediment for the appellant herein to execute the deed as directed by the learned Single Judge. If at all the appellant anticipates any rival claim in future, the Society can very well seek for an indemnity bond from the writ petitioner and convey the property as directed by this Court. Instead, the Society has approached this court with the frivolous grounds, which is unsustainable. 8.In light of the above observations, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 12.01.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta 5/6
DR.
G. JAYACHANDRAN , J.
AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ta 12.01.2026 6/6