Judgment :- 1. The 4th respondent owned 68 cents of land at Tuticorin. The 4th respondent executed a Power of Attorney on 15.07.2010 in favour of M.Sumathi in respect of the aforesaid 68 cents. 2. Tmt. M.Sumathi alienated 4 cents based on the power in favour of her daughter -S. Malliga on 26.07.2010. While so, the 4th respondent executed a settlement deed dated 25.10.2010 in respect of the land measuring 64 cents in favour of his minor daughter - Sakthi Maheswari/5th respondent herein. 3. Thereafter, the 4th respondent sent a telegraphic notice dated 26.10.2010 to Tmt.M.Sumathi terminating the power granted to her. The termination of power granted to Tmt.Sumathi was also published in the Nellai Edition of Malai Malar on 26.10.2010. Tmt.M.Sumathi made a complaint to the Superintendent of police, Tuticorin on 03.05.2011 that the 4th respondent has illegally cancelled the power given to her and she made certain allegations. 4. While so, Tmt.M.Sumathi executed a sale deed dated 18.05.2011 measuring 31.142 cents out of 64 cents referred to above in favour of her son Senthil Kumar and two others, namely Nalla Thambi @ Thangam and D.Muthuraman. Tmt.M.Sumathi also executed another sale deed dated 23.5.2011 measuring 13.31 cents in favour of her daughter Nagajothi/petitioner herein and her son Mr.Madhavan. 5. The 4th respondent gave an application to the second respondent under Section 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, complaining that Tmt.M.Sumathi executed sale deeds dated 18.05.2011 and 23.05.2011 fraudulently and also made other allegations. Based on the same, the District Registrar passed an order dated 06.07.2011, cancelling the Registration of the aforesaid sale deeds dated 18.05.2011 and 23.05.2011. The petitioner, on whose favour the sale deed dated 23.05.2011 was executed as stated above, has filed this writ petition, questioning the aforesaid order dated 06.07.2011. One of the grounds raised is that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order. 6. Counter affidavit was filed refuting the allegations. The allegation made is that Tmt.M.Sumathi fraudulently executed sale deeds in favour of her children after knowing that the power, which was in her favour, was cancelled. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The learned counsel for the 4th and 5th respondents has fairly admitted that the reading of the impugned order discloses that the notice was not served on the concerned persons, while the order was passed against them. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The learned counsel for the 4th and 5th respondents has fairly admitted that the reading of the impugned order discloses that the notice was not served on the concerned persons, while the order was passed against them. However, he has expressed apprehension on others, namely, Senthilkumar, Nallathambi, Muthuraman and Madhavan who are also parties to these sale deeds and could not appear before the second respondent and they could also play a trick such as selling the property to some other parties and making the entire issue complicated. It is submitted that it is not an accident that others have not joined as writ petitioners and it is only a design. This Court has also expressed its view when the matter was heard that the parties are known to each other and there is no reason for not making others as writ petitioners particularly when the impugned order was passed against all of them. 9. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 17.01.2013, providing the address of her mother, brothers - Madhavan and Senthil Kumar and two others. 1. M. Nagajothi, D/o.M.Murali, 2070/11, Sugam Apartment, Nehru Nagar 5th Street, 13th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40. 2. M.Sumathi W/o.M.Murali, No.4, 112/8, KTC Nagar,West Zone, RSPR Nagar, 2nd Street, Tuticorin-2. 3. D.Muthuraman,S/o.Devarajan, No.44/7, West Samantha Murthi Street, Tuticorin – 2. 4. Nallathambi S/o.E.Muthusamy, at No.9/33, A.Shanmugapuram, Arookkiyapuram, Tuticorin-2. 5. M.Senthil Kumar, S/o.M.Murali, No.3B/161 A, Ganesan Colony, Tuticorin – 8. 6. Madhavan, S/o.M.Murali, No.4/112/8, KTC Nagar, West Zone, RSPR Nagar, 2nd Street, Tuticorin – 2. 10. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent stated that the submission of addresses in the affidavit is insufficient and there should be an undertaking from all of persons that they would appear before the District Registrar, when the application of the petitioner under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act is heard. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to file an affidavit of undertaking from the five other persons that they could appear before the second respondent, if the matter is remanded back for hearing. Accordingly, today undertaking affidavits from all the 5 persons, namely, Sumathi, Senthilkumar, Nallathmbi, and Muthuraman and Madhavan are filed. Those undertaking affidavits are taken on file. 12. Accordingly, today undertaking affidavits from all the 5 persons, namely, Sumathi, Senthilkumar, Nallathmbi, and Muthuraman and Madhavan are filed. Those undertaking affidavits are taken on file. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the writ petitioner would also appear on the date that would be fixed by the second respondent for hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the possession of 64 cents are only with the 4th respondent. The same is also recorded. 13. The complaint of the mother of the petitioner dated 03.05.2011 to the Superintendent of Police makes it clear that Tmt.M.Sumathi is aware of the cancellation of the power of Attorney given to her by the 4th respondent. In addition to that, the 4th respondent settled 64 cents by way of settlement deed dated 25.10.2010 in favour of his minor daughter/5th respondent herein. In these circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh hearing by the second respondent, I make it clear that neither Sumathi nor the beneficiaries of the sale deeds dated 18.05.2011 and 23.05.2011 would alienate the properties, before the order is passed by the second respondent on remand. 14. As stated above, the impugned order is set aside for the aforesaid reasons. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent for passing fresh order. The second respondent is directed to issue notice to Sumathi, Senthilkumar Nallathambi, Muthuraman, the writ petitioner/(Nagajothi) and Madhavan to the above mentioned address furnished by the writ petitioner and to direct those persons to appear before him on the particular date fixed by him. The second respondent is directed to send notice by Registered post with acknowledgment due. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioner and the other 5 persons referred to above have not chosen to appear in spite of the notice, the second respondent is at liberty to pass the order. It is made it clear that if any one of the 6 persons is served, it is deemed that all the 6 persons are served. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The second respondent is also directed to permit the parties to represent their case through lawyers. It is made it clear that if any one of the 6 persons is served, it is deemed that all the 6 persons are served. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The second respondent is also directed to permit the parties to represent their case through lawyers. But, in any case, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the same within two months without granting any adjournments.