Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in C.No.358/AIGSC/CUD/2012 dated 12.03.2012 and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased an agricultural land to an extent of 13 acres 88 cents from the 3rd respondent in Cuddalore for a sale consideration of Rs.15,30,000/-on 10.09.2003. The entire land and original documents pertaining to the whole land was handed over to the petitioner on the same date by the 3rd respondent. It appears that the 3rd respondent had entered into an sale agreement with one Narayanasamy and since the said Narayanasamy was not willing to proceed with the sale agreement the 3rd respondent had requested the petitioner to postpone the registration till the cancellation of the sale agreement. The 3rd respondent had also requested to settle the loan that he had borrowed from the Indian Bank. 3. As requested by the 3rd respondent the petitioner settled the amounts borrowed by the 3rd respondent to Narayanasamy and Indian Bank. Further the petitioner submits that though the 3rd respondent had come forward to execute the registration for 3.70 acres of land, he sought some time to execute the registration of the whole land. The petitioner submits that2 he is in possession of the 13 acres of land and is cultivating coconut trees, sugar cane etc. and paying necessary charges. The 3rd respondent has also assisted the petitioner to mutate the name in the village Revenue records by giving statement before the V.A.O of the village. Though the petitioner asked the 3rd respondent to execute the registration of the whole land, the 3rd respondent used to postpone the registration under some pretext or the other. 4. While so, the petitioner was shocked to receive notice in O.S.No.69 of 2008 from the Additional District Judge Fast Track No.2, Cuddalore wherein the 3rd respondent herein sought for the declaration of title over the said land and also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner in any manner interfering and disturbing the 3rd respondent from the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said land. The trial court after full fledged trial by judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 granted the relief of declaration of title in favour of the 3rd respondent and dismissed the prayer for permanent injunction against the petitioner observing the legal documents and evidence produced by the petitioner. 5. Though the version of the 3rd respondent speak otherwise, the 3rd respondent had handed over the documents to the petitioner and also collected the amount from the petitioner. Against the order of dismissal, A.S.No.907 of 2010 was preferred by two plaintiffs one of which is the 3rd respondent herein, and the other being the wife of the 3rd respondent. On 26.07.2011 the said appeal was dismissed and the order of the trial court was confirmed. Having lost the case before two forums, the petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent had made a complaint to the Land Grabbing Cell, Cuddalore and the petitioner had to move anticipatory bail before this court. 6. The trial court as well as the appellate court has held that the plaintiffs in the suit are the owners of the property which cannot be disputed and passed the judgement and decree that they are the owners of the property. But however held that the entire documents have been handed over to the petitioner herein. 7. The appellate court has also relied upon Ex.B2 and held that the agreement entered into between the respondent herein and Narayanasamy has been cancelled. When there is a specific observation by the civil court that possession has been handed over to the writ petitioner and that has been confirmed by an order of this court in appeal in A.S.No.907 of 2010 dated 26.07.2011, it is strange as to how an indirect form of mandatory injunction can be granted by 2nd respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent in the so called land grabbing case. 8. Since the petitioner as observed by the civil court and confirmed by this court in A.S.No.907 of 2010 has paid the entire sale consideration and the 3rd respondent and his wife had handed over the documents to the writ petitioner but the only fact that there is no sale deed executed as on date, the second respondent cannot issue such a direction to the 1st respondent. 9. 9. In fact the second respondent should drop further proceedings that after he was brought to notice of the civil suit judgment and decree of this court in A.S.No.907 of 2010 the petitioner has not filed any contempt proceedings against the 2nd respondent. The order of the 2nd respondent is an utter defiance to the orders of this court that confirmed the judgment and decree of the civil court. Hence I find merits in the contentions raised by the writ petition. 10. The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The contention that the petitioner has not made any counter claim or filed any specific performance suit need not be gone into in this writ petition. 11. After dictating the order the 3rd respondent has prayed for a liberty to proceed further in the manner known to law. However, it is open to the 3rd respondent as well as to the writ petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with, if they are so advised and permitted.