ORDER : R. Subbiah, J. 1. This Writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.04.2013 in Ni.Mu.No.4596/Aa1/2012, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to cancel the documents registered by the 3rd respondent in the nomenclature of "Cancellation of Settlement Deed" vide document No. 2069, dated 07.04.2010 and document No. 2407, dated 19.04.2010, executed by the 4th respondent. It is averred by the petitioner in the affidavit that she is the Muthawalli of a private Wakf namely, "Rasulullah Fathiha Wakf Trust". The said private Wakf has got landed property at T.S. No. 1639/2 (New T.S. No. 3792) to an extent of 19 cents in Ward No. 42 (previously Ward No. 10 and later on renumbered as Ward No. 6) at P.T. Rajan Road, Narimedu, Madurai. In the said land, there is a commercial complex consisting of 20 shops and the same are all in the possession and management of the petitioner. The said private Wakf has been founded by the petitioner's paternal grandfather namely, B.S. Usman and it was contended as per the norms designed by the founder and the first Muthawalli of the said private Wakf. The 4th respondent, herein who is none other than the petitioner's father, has become the successor Muthavalli of the private Wakf, after the demise of the petitioner's grandfather. 2. It is stated that as per the terms of the founder Muthawalli of the Wakf, the income derived from the said private Wakf has to be utilized for charitable works of the Wakf and the rest of income has to be utilized for the family members of the Muthawalli of the Wakf. The administration of the Wakf should be carried out by the Muthawalli of the Wakf. The appointment of the forthcoming Muthavalli of the Wakf shall be made by the outgoing Muthawalli of the Wakf, if he so decides to appoint during his life time. The out going Muthawalli can appoint one of his male or female child of his choice as Muthawalli of the Wakf and such appointment shall be made through a settlement deed duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar. 3. The out going Muthawalli can appoint one of his male or female child of his choice as Muthawalli of the Wakf and such appointment shall be made through a settlement deed duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar. 3. It is also stated that as the 4th respondent was unable to look into the duties of the Wakf, during his life time, he had chosen to appoint the petitioner as the Muthavalli of the Wakf and accordingly, he executed an irrevocable settlement deed on 14.05.2008 in favour of the petitioner vide document No. 3286 of 2008 and also transferred his right hold of the property of the Wakf in favour of the petitioner and the same has been duly registered at the office of the 3rd respondent herein. 4. It is further stated that by virtue of the powers conferred upon the petitioner through the above said settlement deed, the petitioner has started functioning as the Muthavalli of the Wakf and has been discharging the duties of the Wakf. It is pertinent to note that the 4th respondent, while executing the above said settlement deed in favour of the petitioner, has specifically stated that at no point of time, he has any right or authority, either to modify or cancel the said irrevocable settlement deed and accordingly, without there being any impediment, the petitioner has been exercising her official duties in the capacity of Muthavalli of the Wakf. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on 07.04.2010, the 4th respondent has unilaterally cancelled the above said irrevocable settlement deed vide document No. 2067. Subsequently, on the strength of the said registered cancellation deed dated 07.04.2010, the 4th respondent, without the knowledge of the petitioner has executed yet another deed, characterized as settlement deed and registered the same as document No. 2407 on 22.04.2010. All these acts have taken place without issuing any notice to the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved over the cancellation of the irrevocable settlement deed dated 14.05.2008 made in favour of the petitioner, she approached the Civil Court and filed a suit in O.S. No. 283 of 2010 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, as against the 4th respondent and sought for the relief of declaration. 6. Aggrieved over the cancellation of the irrevocable settlement deed dated 14.05.2008 made in favour of the petitioner, she approached the Civil Court and filed a suit in O.S. No. 283 of 2010 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, as against the 4th respondent and sought for the relief of declaration. That apart, since the 1st respondent has got power under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Registration Act, to set aside the registration of any document, if he finds that a fraud has been committed while registering a document, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 22.12.2012 to the 1st respondent. As no steps have been taken, the petitioner filed a Writ petition before in W.P.(MD) No. 1842 of 2013 and sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent for the disposal of the said representation. This Court vide order dated 31.01.2013 was pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. However, the 2nd respondent while disposing of the representation of the petitioner vide proceedings in Ni.Mu.No.4596/Aal/2012, dated 16.04.2013 has simply negatived the request of the petitioner by saying that it is only for the Civil Court to dwell into the matter. Challenging the impugned order dated 16.04.2013, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Writ petition. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, in which, it is stated that the relief sought for by the petitioner is not maintainable as the impugned order itself clearly states that if a person is aggrieved over the order of the 2nd respondent, he can make an appeal before the 1st respondent under the provision of the Registration Act. Without availing the appellate remedy, the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable in law as statutory appellate remedy is available to the petitioner and hence, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is also stated that the petitioner herself admitted in the affidavit that she has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 283 of 2010 against the 4th respondent for the very same relief. The present Writ petition has been filed for the very same relief, which has already been sought for by the petitioner in the said suit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The present Writ petition has been filed for the very same relief, which has already been sought for by the petitioner in the said suit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit that as per the Article 58-B of Schedule-I, of the Indian Stamp Act, the Instrument of settlement is revocable and hence, it is registered by the registering authority. Since there is no prohibition in the Act, prohibiting the registration of cancellation of gift deed, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is stated that when the petitioner is pleading with the allegation of fraud against the 4th respondent, the registering authority is not competent to look into the said allegations. Hence, the impugned order is valid under the Law and if the petitioner is aggrieved over the same, she is having a remedy of filing an appeal before the 1st respondent. Without doing so, the present Writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent has executed the cancellation of irrevocable settlement deed with the 3rd respondent on 07.04.2010 in an unilateral manner and the 2nd respondent has failed to see the fact that in an earlier execution of settlement deed dated 14.05.2008, it has been specifically stated the fact that once the 4th respondent executed the settlement deed, he would be automatically ceased of his right upon the said property and as such, he becomes functus officio in so far as the transaction on the said property and in such a situation, the 4th respondent has no authority to claim any right over the properties. When that being the legal position, the 2nd respondent by considering the request of the petitioner ought to have cancelled the deed registered by the 3rd respondent executed by the 4th respondent unilaterally cancelling the settlement deed executed before the Registrar. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the transferer cannot create a deed of cancellation unilaterally and if so, such a document does not create any encumbrance in the property and hence the Registering Authority ought not to have registered the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the transferer cannot create a deed of cancellation unilaterally and if so, such a document does not create any encumbrance in the property and hence the Registering Authority ought not to have registered the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent. He further submitted that having got a right through a registered document, the transferee need not resort to the remedy of filing a Civil suit, since the powers have already been vested upon the registration authority. Hence, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent, to set aside the documents registered by them. But the second respondent rejected the request made by the petitioner to set aside the registration of settlement deed executed by the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that unless deed is cancelled, it would be very difficult for the petitioner to have an unhindered occupation upon the said property. 11. In support of the contention of the learned appearing for the petitioner has relied upon some of the judgments in W.A. No. 1596 of 2014, W.P.(MD)No. 121 of 2013, W.P. No. 21825 of 2014, W.P.(MD)Nos. 26224 and 26225 of 2010 and 2012 (4) CTC 138 . 12. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent, an appeal remedy is available, before the 1st respondent. Without availing such alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot file the present Writ petition to challenge the impugned order, which has been passed by the 2nd respondent. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the Writ petition. He submitted that the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court for the very same relief of cancellation of settlement deed and hence, the present Writ petition is not at all maintainable. He relied on some of the decisions reported in, AIR 1954 SC 207 (Vol. 41, C.N. 46), 1977 Vol. 1 SCC 1, (1995)1 SCC 642 , (2005) 1 SCC 604 and 2012 (2) CWC 866. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the entire records carefully. 15. 41, C.N. 46), 1977 Vol. 1 SCC 1, (1995)1 SCC 642 , (2005) 1 SCC 604 and 2012 (2) CWC 866. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the entire records carefully. 15. It is an admitted case that the 4th respondent has executed an irrevocable settlement deed on 14.05.2008 vide document No. 3286 of 2008 and also transferred his right hold of the property of Wakf in favour of the petitioner. But, subsequently the 4th respondent has cancelled the said settlement deed dated 14.05.2008 by way of cancellation deed dated 07.04.2010. Hence, aggrieved over the cancellation of the said irrevocable settlement unilaterally vide document No. 2069, dated 07.04.2010, as well as document No. 2407, dated 19.04.2010, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition, since the same were done without issuing notice to her. In this regard, the petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S. No. 283 of 2010 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, wherein, she prayed that the cancellation deed dated 07.04.2010 bearing document No. 2069/2010 executed by the defendant/4th respondent, cancelling the private settlement Wakf deed dated 14.05.2008 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff/petitioner. 16. It is seen that the petitioner sent a representation dated 22.12.2012 seeking to cancel the unilateral deeds, which has been executed by the 4th respondent and also filed a Writ petition in WP.(MD)No. 1842 of 2013, praying to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.12.2012 and this Court by order dated 31.01.2013, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner. In order to obey the order passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent has passed the present impugned order. Hence, it is clear that the prayer sought for in the present Writ petition and the prayer in the suit in O.S. No. 283 of 2010 are one and the same. Having approached the Civil Court for cancelling the unilateral settlement deeds, the petitioner cannot file a Writ petition for the very same relief before this Court. 17. Hence, it is clear that the prayer sought for in the present Writ petition and the prayer in the suit in O.S. No. 283 of 2010 are one and the same. Having approached the Civil Court for cancelling the unilateral settlement deeds, the petitioner cannot file a Writ petition for the very same relief before this Court. 17. In a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Jai Singh v. Union of India and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 1 it has been held that High Court should not in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction grant the relief, when a party has already filed a suit, in which, similar relief has been sought for. But it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed as against the fourth respondent for declaring the cancellation of deed dated 07.04.2010 bearing document No. 2069/2010 executed by the defendant cancelling the private settlement Wakf Deed dated 14/05/2008 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, namely, the petitioner herein, the present writ petition has been filed to set aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent rejecting the representation given by the petitioner with regard to cancellation of unilateral settlement deed and as such it cannot be said the prayer made in the suit and the Writ petition is one and the same. But, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that if the suit is decreed in favour of the petitioner, the ultimate result both in the Civil Suit and in this writ petition would be the one and the same. It is apt to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that the litigant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. For the foregoing reasons set out above, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to seek similar prayer before the Civil Court as well as before this Court. Thus, the present writ petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court for the very same relief. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Thus, the present writ petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court for the very same relief. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. While doing so, it is made clear that the Civil Court shall pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced any of the observations made in this order.