Judgment 1. The petitioners in all these three writ petitions are one and the same persons. The first petitioner is the mother and the second petitioner is the son. When W.P.No.13062 of 2012 came up for admission, after giving private notice to parties, this court on being informed that the very same petitioners have filed other two writ petitions being W.P.Nos.4180 and 4181 of 2011, with the consent of parties directed those two writ petitions to be posted along with W.P.No.13062 of 2012. Accordingly, they were grouped together and a common order is passed. 2. The issue covered in all three writ petitions relating to a property in S.No.214/1A in Kattupakkam Village, Poondamalli Taluk. The first writ petition in W.P.No.4180 of 2011 was filed by petitioners to call for the deed of cancellation of sale deed, dated 27.07.2007. By the cancellation deed, the earlier sale deed executed on 12.06.2000 covered by document No.3523 of 2000 registered with the Sub Registrar Office, Kundrathur Sub Registrar was cancelled. That writ petition was admitted on 22.02.2011. Pending the writ petition, ad interim injunction was granted restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the propeties by executing any document. Inspiration for entertaining the writ petition and passing an interim order came from the judgment of the Full Bench in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Hadeeja Ammal and others reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 . 3. The second writ petition (W.P.No.4181 of 2011) was also filed by the same petitioners. The prayer was to set aside the deed of cancellation of settlement deed dated 27.7.2007 executed by the first petitioner's former husband through his power agent, i.e., the second respondent and registered as document No.9996 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur and seeks to set aside the same and to delete the entry of cancellation. That writ petition was admitted on 22.02.2011. Pending the writ petition, an interim injunction was granted similar to the one granted in the other writ petition. On notice, the third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, dated 23.02.2011. 4. That writ petition was admitted on 22.02.2011. Pending the writ petition, an interim injunction was granted similar to the one granted in the other writ petition. On notice, the third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, dated 23.02.2011. 4. W.P.No.13062 of 2012 was filed by the same petitioners to call for the sale deed dated 30.07.2010 executed by the third respondent as a power agent of the second respondent in favour of the fourth respondent and registered by the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur and after setting aside the same, seek for a direction to delete the entry of sale deed in document No.8403 of 2010, dated 30.07.2010. 5. Before proceeding with the facts of the case, it must be noted that the parties involved in these writ petitions are all closely related to each other. The first petitioner Sumathy is the daughter of the contesting respondent Mrs.Kamala Anbarasu. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. The first petitioner got married to one Panneerselvam shown as respondent No.2 in W.P.No.13062 of 2012 during the year 1986. From out of the wedlock, they gave birth to two children, one son Sidharth @ Cibi, the second petitioner in all writ petitions and one daughter Lallu @ Prathana. According to the first petitioner, the said Panneerselvam had purchased a property in Kattupakkam village in S.No.214/1A to an extent of 25 cents by way of a sale deed No.523 of 1990 and registered with the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur. From that day onwards, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the year 1991, she went along with her children to Australia to live with the said Panneerselvam. But, however as differences arose between the two, they obtained a decree of divorce from the Family Court at Australia on 14.11.1999. During the relevant time, Panneerselvam had executed a settlement deed through his power agent, i.e. mother-in-law, Kamala Anbarasu, the contesting respondent, in favour of the petitioners on 12.06.2000. Now that document was sought to be cancelled using the power agent, the first petitioner's mother, vide cancellation deed dated 27.7.2007. It is this action which is under challenge in W.P.No.4181 of 2011. Even during the pendency of the said writ petition, by a sale deed dated 30.7.2010, the said property was sold to the brother of the first petitioner Arul Anbarasu. That sale deed is challenged in W.P.No.13062 of 2012. 6. It is this action which is under challenge in W.P.No.4181 of 2011. Even during the pendency of the said writ petition, by a sale deed dated 30.7.2010, the said property was sold to the brother of the first petitioner Arul Anbarasu. That sale deed is challenged in W.P.No.13062 of 2012. 6. In W.P.No.4180 of 2011, the challenge is relating to the sale deed executed by one Balasubramani in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the power of attorney executed by the said Balasubramani and Nithya Kalyani, dated 6.5.1987. That sale deed was sought to be cancelled by a deed of cancellation dated 27.7.2007. While W.P.No.4180 of 2011 related to 12 cents of land in S.No.214/1A at Kattupakkam village, the other W.P.Nos.4181 of 2011 and 13062 of 2012 related to an extent of 25 cents in the same survey number. 7. The contention of the petitioners was that her mother Kamala Anbarasu had misused the power of attorney and without any authority had cancelled the settlement deed and sale deed made in her favour. Even she sold it to her own son by a further sale deed dated 30.07.2010. Therefore, all the three transactions were illegal and void. The Sub Registrar without ascertaining the facts ought not to have registered these documents. 8. In W.P.No.4181 of 2012, the third respondent, i.e., Panneerselvam had filed a counter affidavit stating that he did not give any instruction to his mother-in-law to cancel the settlement deed and it was done without his consent. Such an issue cannot be gone into in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. At this stage, by way of evidence, the said document cannot be taken on record. 9. On notice in W.P.No.13062 of 2012, the petitioner’s mother Kamala Anbarasu and the power agent of Panneerselvam has filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (June, 2012). In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioners were never in possession of the property in question. During their absence, she was collecting the rent from one tenant Selvaraj. The petitioners are very much aware of the cancellation of sale deed and the subsequent sale deed made in favour of her brother Arul Anbarasu. The contention that she came to know subsequently these facts was also denied. During their absence, she was collecting the rent from one tenant Selvaraj. The petitioners are very much aware of the cancellation of sale deed and the subsequent sale deed made in favour of her brother Arul Anbarasu. The contention that she came to know subsequently these facts was also denied. Even the claim that they were in possession of land related documents was explained by stating that without knowing the fact of cancellation of deeds, joint patta, chitta and adangals were issued in favour of the petitioners and she had also applied for patta. The matters are pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur. The electricity connection is standing in favour of the first petitioner’s brother Arul Anbarasu. He is also paying the property tax for the said building. It is the petitioner’s brother who is now in possession of the property to an extent of 0.25 cents of land. They also filed a Criminal O.P.No.27751 of 2011 seeking to restrain them from entering the property and claiming police protection which is also pending. This will show that they are not in possession of the land. It is the first petitioner’s brother who is in actual possession. The documents executed by her were fully lawful and does not liable for cancellation. 10. Since the petitioners very much relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench in Latif Estate Line India Ltd.'s case (cited supra), it is necessary to see the full import of the said judgment. The Full Bench after referring to all previous case laws, in paragraph 59 summed up its conclusion which reads as follows : "59. After giving our anxious consideration on the questions raised in the instant case, we come to the following conclusion: - (i) A deed of cancellation of a sale unilaterally executed by the transferor does not create, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the property and is of no effect. Such a document does not create any encumbrance in the property already transferred. Hence such a deed of cancellation cannot be accepted for registration. (ii) Once title to the property is vested in the transferee by the sale of the property, it cannot be divested unto the transferor by execution and registration of a deed of cancellation even with the consent of the parties. Hence such a deed of cancellation cannot be accepted for registration. (ii) Once title to the property is vested in the transferee by the sale of the property, it cannot be divested unto the transferor by execution and registration of a deed of cancellation even with the consent of the parties. The proper course would be to reconvey the property by a deed of conveyance by the transferee in favour of the transferor. (iii) Where a transfer is effected by way of sale with the condition that title will pass on payment of consideration, and such intention is clear from the recital in the deed, then such instrument or sale can be cancelled by a deed of cancellation with the consent of both the parties on the ground of non-payment of consideration. The reason is that in such a sale deed, admittedly, the title remained with the transferor. (iv) In other cases, a complete and absolute sale can be cancelled at the instance of the transferor only by taking recourse to the Civil Court by obtaining a decree of cancellation of sale deed on the ground inter alia of fraud or any other valid reasons." 11. It must be noted that this authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench was delivered only on 11.02.2011 and that transactions in this case had taken long before the same. The petitioners have filed writ petitions only taking advantage of the law declared by the Full Bench and never challenged those documents in the manner known to law at an early point of time. In order to cover up the delay, they had stated that only on applying the encumbrance certificate, they came to know about the alleged fraudulent transactions. That cannot be believed. They placed reliance upon paragraph 59(2) of the full bench judgment which was extracted above. In this case, the question of possession of the property by the petitioners itself is in doubt. Secondly the documents have been executed on the basis of power of attorney which has not been cancelled till date though it is stated that the power applies only to a particular transaction. These are all matters of evidence. 12. In this case, the additional fact is that the parties are close relatives, i.e., mother and daughter. Secondly the documents have been executed on the basis of power of attorney which has not been cancelled till date though it is stated that the power applies only to a particular transaction. These are all matters of evidence. 12. In this case, the additional fact is that the parties are close relatives, i.e., mother and daughter. Therefore, what transpires between them is within their exclusive knowledge and at a later point of time, due to family differences they accused one another cannot be taken note of that too in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The course open to the petitioners is also well set out in paragraph 59(iv) of the full bench judgment. Therefore, the remedy to the petitioners is to institute an appropriate civil suit and claim title over the property which was given by way of sale deed or by way of settlement. Even in those proceedings, they can challenge the subsequent transfer of property made by her mother in favour of the brother of the first petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioners’ filing these three writ petitions based upon the ruling of the Full Bench is misconceived. This court is not willing to go into the disputed question of facts especially in the contest of the litigation is between the mother and the daughter. The matter will have to be tested by evidence of parties both oral and documentary. 13. In view of the above, these three writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.