2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 17 / 08 / 2026

DELIVERED ON : 08 / 09 / 2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

W.A. (MD) No.2793 of 2025

and

C.M.P. (MD) No.15674 of 2025

1. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing)

Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies

No. 493, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai, Nandanam,

Chennai. Now residing at No.48

Ritherdon Road, Vepery,

Chennai 07.

2. The Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies (Housing)

Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

Madurai Region, Baskar Complex

Chinna Chokkikulam,

Madurai

3. The Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing)

Office of the Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

Madurai.

…Appellants /

Respondents 1 to 3

Versus

Page No.1 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

1. M Rajalakshmi

W/o.Mohan

10 / 46, Alagar Nagar

5

th

Cross Street,

K.Pudur, Madurai. ... 1

st

Respondent /

Writ Petitioner

2. The Sub Registrar

Registration Department,

Thallkulam Sub Registrar,

Thallakulam,

Madurai. … 2

nd

Respondent /

4

th

Respondent

PRAYER in W. A. (MD) No.2793 of 2025: Writ Appeal filed under

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the Order dated

January 28, 2025 passed in W.P. (MD) No.29571 of 2024 on the file of

this Court.

PRAYER in C.M.P. (MD) No.15674 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous

Petition filed praying to stay the operation of the Order dated January 28,

2025, passed in W.P. (MD) No.29571 of 2024, pending disposal of the

Writ Appeal and pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court

deems fit.

For Appellants:Mr. S.I.Muthiah

Additional Government Pleader

For Respondent

No.1

:Mr.A.Joseph Jerry

Page No.2 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

J U D G M E NT

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed at the instance of the respondents in W.P.

(MD) No.29571 of 2024, challenging the Order dated January 28, 2025

passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court therein. The prayer in the

Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to quash

the 'Attachment Order in Na.Ka.No.1560/2018/VA, dated October 31,

2018 passed under Section 167 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative

Societies Act, 1983', which shall hereinafter be referred to as the

'Impugned Attachment Order'.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the first respondent

herein who had filed the aforesaid Writ Petition will be addressed as the

writ petitioner, while the appellants herein will be continued to be

addressed as appellants.

3. The case of the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition is that she

purchased a house site in Survey No.197-1, situate at Nallamani Nagar,

K. Pudur, Thallakulam Taluk, Madurai District, vide Sale Deed dated

April 09, 2008 bearing Document No.1597 of 2008. The said property

was her self-acquired property, purchased using the Sreedhanam given

Page No.3 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

by her parents at the time of her marriage. Apart from the said

Sreedhanam, she was also engaged in the money-lending and finance

business, from which she earned a substantial income. The said property

absolutely belonged to the writ petitioner.

3.1. Her further case in the Writ Petition is that her husband, namely

C.Mohan, served as the President of the third respondent's Society. A

surcharge proceedings was initiated against him. Pursuant to the same,

the property belonging to the writ petitioner, along with two other

properties, were attached by the Impugned Attachment Order. The writ

petitioner came to know about Impugned Attachment Order only

recently, when she attempted to sell the property. Accordingly, she prayed

that the writ petition be allowed.

4. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, concluded

that the property in question was purchased by the writ petitioner on

April 09, 2008 much prior to initiation of surcharge proceedings under

Section 87 of 'the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983' ['1983

Act']. On the date of Impugned Attachment Order, the property in

question stood in the name of the writ petitioner. Hence, the Impugned

Attachment Order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the learned

Page No.4 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Impugned

Attachment Order. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein,

have preferred this Writ Appeal.

5. Mr.S.I.Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for the appellants would submit that the first respondent's

husband - C.Mohan, during his tenure as the President of third

respondent's Society namely Madurai Co-operative Building Society, had

misappropriated money to the tune of Rs.42,863/-. Further, he had caused

loss to the tune of Rs.45,98,621/- to the Society. The property in question

had been purchased in the name of his wife / writ petitioner by utilizing

the misappropriated funds. The writ petitioner has no wherewithal to

purchase property. Moreover, the writ petitioner's husband has made a

value addition to the said property by building a superstructure thereon.

Only on these grounds, Impugned Attachment Order was passed qua the

property in question.

5.1. Further, he would attack the maintainability of the Writ Petition

on the point that the writ petitioner has an efficacious and alternate

remedy under the 1983 Act and 'the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies

Rules, 1988' ['1988 Rules']. His submission would be that, if in case if

Page No.5 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

the writ petitioner feels aggrieved by the Impugned Attachment Order,

she ought to file a petition under Rule 135 of the 1988 Rules. The learned

Single Judge without considering the alternate remedy available to the

writ petitioner, as well as the fact that a huge amount was

misappropriated by the writ petitioner's husband, allowed the Writ

Petition. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the writ appeal and set

aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. On the other hand, Mr.A.Joseph Jerry, learned Counsel

appearing for the first respondent / writ petitioner would argue that, the

writ petitioner purchased the Plot Nos.40 & 40A in Survey No.197-1

situated at Nallamani Nagar, K.Pudur, Thallakulam Taluk, Madurai

District as vacant lands, by selling her gold jewels as well as using her

personal earnings. Hence, the said property is her personal property.

Further, the alleged misappropriation took place in the year 2013-2018,

whereas the writ petitioner purchased the property in 2008, much before

the alleged misappropriation. Therefore, the same cannot be attached in

the surcharge proceedings against her husband. Without considering the

said fact, the Impugned Attachment Order was passed, that too without

any notice to the writ petitioner in violation of the principles of natural

justice. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire facts and

Page No.6 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

circumstances rightly allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the

Impugned Attachment Order. There is no irregularity or illegality in the

Order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, he would pray to

dismiss the Writ Appeal.

7. This Court has considered both sides' submissions and perused

the materials available on record.

8. It is stated by the writ petitioner that the property in question

viz., Plot Nos.40 & 40A in Survey No.197-1 situated at Nallamani Nagar,

K.Pudur, Thallakulam Taluk, Madurai District, was purchased by her

vide Sale Deed dated April 9, 2008 for a sale consideration of Rs.

5,13,414/- from one Velu Konar. She has annexed a copy of her Sale

Deed as well as Encumbrance Certificates in respect of the property in

question. The writ petitioner had purchased the property in the year 2008

as vacant land.

9. This Court has carefully perused the description of the property

contained in the Impugned Attachment Order, whereby the appellants had

attached three properties. The first property is a house property situate in

Survey No.198/3 said to be purchased by the writ petitioner's husband -

C.Mohan vide Sale Deed dated August 01, 2008, whereafter he executed

Page No.7 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

a Lease Deed in favour of Sivasankar on April 27, 2018, and later the

Lease Deed was cancelled on January 13, 2020. In the interregnum, the

said property was attached on November 10, 2018 by the appellants. To

be noted, after attachment, the writ petitioner obtained Gift Settlement

Deed from her husband. Be that as it may, the said property in Survey

No.198/3 is not the subject matter in the present Writ proceedings.

10. The second property attached vide the Impugned Attachment

Order is in Survey No.196/2. It is stated that the said property was

purchased by the writ petitioner's husband vide Sale Deed dated June 21,

2001 from one Subburam and later sold to P.Shanthi by him, vide Sale

Deed dated January 24, 2007. The aforesaid property in Survey No.

196/2 is also not a subject property in the present Writ proceedings.

11. The third property attached vide Impugned Attachment Order is

the property currently in question. Bare reading of the description of

property thereof would show that it is a vacant land. So, it has been

purchased as a vacant land and remained so. Hence, the contention of the

appellants before this Court that the writ petitioner's husband has

improve the property in question by putting up a superstructure thereon

and therefore, the attachment is justifiable and valid, appears to have

Page No.8 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

been an improved version and probably an afterthought.

12. The property in question was purchased by the writ petitioner

and not her husband. The writ petitioner claims that she purchased the

same using her self-income and by selling gold ornaments. Admittedly,

the misappropriation allegedly took place during the period between

2013 and 2018. Whereas, the property has been purchased by the writ

petitioner much before, in the year 2008. It was purchased as a vacant

land and as it could be seen from the description of property in the

Impugned Attachment Order, it has remained as a vacant land. In these

circumstances, this Court fails to see any nexus between the

misappropriation allegedly done by the writ petitioner's husband and the

purchase of the property in question by the writ petitioner much before

the alleged misappropriation. Moreover, the Impugned Attachment Order

has been issued without any notice to the writ petitioner and she is not a

party to the proceedings under Section 167 of the 1983 Act. The said

provision reads thus:

"CHAPTER XIX

MISCELLANEOUS

167. Furnishing of security and attachment of

property.-

(1) Where the Registrar is satisfied on

Page No.9 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

the application of a registered society in

respect of a reference made to him under sub-

section (1) of section 90 or on the application

of a liquidator appointed under section 138 in

respect of the proceedings of such liquidator

for determining the contribution to be made by

a person to the assets of the society under

clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 139 or

on the application of the board or liquidator or

any creditor to the society or otherwise in

respect of any inquiry ordered into the conduct

of any person under section 87 that any party

to the reference or the person, as the case may

be, is about to dispose of or remove from the

local limits of the jurisdiction of the Registrar,

the whole or any part of his property with

intent to defeat or delay the execution of any

decision that may be passed on the reference

or of any order that may be passed against him

by the liquidator or the Registrar, as the case

may be, the Registrar may, by order, direct the

party or the person, to furnish security in such

sum and within such time as may be specified

in such order and to produce and place at the

disposal of the Registrar when required, the

said property or such part thereof as may be

sufficient for the execution of any decision or

Page No.10 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

order aforesaid.

(2) The Registrar may also in the order

made under sub-section (1), or by a separate

order, direct the conditional attachment of the

said property, or such part thereof and such

attachment shall have the same effect as if it

had been made by a competent Civil Court:

Provided that no order for conditional

attachment shall be made under this sub-

section unless the Registrar, for the reasons to

be recorded in writing, is satisfied that the

whole or any part of the property will be

disposed of or removed with intent to defeat or

delay the execution of any decision or order of

the liquidator or the Registrar, as the case may

be."

[Emphasis supplied by this Court]

12.1. As it could be seen from the proviso to sub-clause 2 of the said

Section 167, the Registrar is bound to record reasons for his satisfaction

that the whole or part of the property will be disposed of with an intent of

defeating or delaying the proceedings, in writing. This provision is pari-

materia to the concept of attachment before Judgment under Order

XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [C.P.C.]. It is

Page No.11 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

settled law that, unless it is proved that the property belongs to the

defendant, attachment cannot be made under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of

C.P.C. In the present case, the Registrar appears to have attached the writ

petitioner's property without any material or evidence connecting it to the

alleged misappropriation or alleged misappropriator. As stated above,

there is a lack of nexus. There is no reason whatsoever assigned in this

regard or for his satisfaction qua the criteria specified in the proviso to

Section 167 (2) of the 1983 Act. Hence, the Impugned Attachment Order

does not qualify as a reasoned Order. For not being a reasoned Order and

for no notice to the writ petitioner, the Impugned Attachment Order is in

violation of the principles of natural justice.

12.2. Further, at this point, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 140 of

the 1988 Rules, which reads thus:

"140. Mode of making attachment before

judgement.

(1) Attachment of property under section

167 shall be made in the manner provided in

the foregoing rules of this chapter.

(2) Where a claim is preferred to

property attached under sub-rule (1) such

claim shall be investigated in the manner and

by the authority specified in the foregoing rules

Page No.12 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

of this chapter.

(3) …

(4) Attachment made under sub-rule (1)

shall not affect the rights existing prior to the

attachment of persons not parties to the

proceedings in connection with which the

attachment was made, nor bar any person

holding a decree against the person whose

property is attached from applying for the sale

of property under attachment in execution of

such decree.

(5) …"

[Emphasis supplied by this Court]

12.3. A bare reading of sub-rule 4 of the afore-extracted Rule 140

would show that attachment shall not affect the rights of a person over

the property, where such rights exist prior to the attachment, which

means attachment of someone's else's property without any nexus would

not bind that person. At the cost of repetition, this Court reiterates that

there is no material connecting the property in question to the alleged

misappropriation or alleged misappropriator.

12.4. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellants without

any material or evidence, in a casual manner, have ordered for attachment

Page No.13 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

of the writ petitioner's property vide the Impugned Attachment Order,

that too without following the principles of nature justice.

13. It is true that the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy

under Rule 140 read with Rule 135, of the 1988 Rules. The alternate

remedy rule is susceptible to certain limited exceptions, one among

which is violation of principles of natural justice [See Paragraph Nos.7 to

9 of the Judgment dated July 31, 2026 of this Court made in The

Inspector General of Registration -vs- V. Murugan in W.A. (MD) No.

3096 of 2025 bearing neutral citation 2026/MHC/3179]. As stated supra,

the Impugned Attachment Order inter-alia in respect of the writ

petitioner's property was issued without any notice to the writ petitioner

and hence, there is violation of principles of natural justice in this case.

Since the appellants failed to follow the principles of natural justice, this

Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is maintainable even in the

presence of an alternate and efficacious remedy.

14. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire facts and

circumstances rightly allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the

Impugned Attachment Order qua Plot Nos.40 and 40A situate in Survey

No.197-1 at Nallamanai Nagar, Thallakulam, Madurai District. This

Page No.14 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the Order of the

learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed

as devoid of merits.

15. Resultantly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.

The Impugned Attachment Order, namely Attachment Order dated

October 31, 2018 in Na.Ka.No.1560/2018/VA, stands raised qua the

property in Survey No.197/1 alone, as ordered by the learned Single

Judge. It is hereby clarified that no view is expressed by this Court on the

Impugned Attachment Order qua the other two properties. In view of the

facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

(C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V,J)

08 / 09 / 2026

Index : Yes

Speaking Order : Yes

Neutral Citation : Yes

gvn

To:

The Sub Registrar,

Registration Department,

Thallkulam Sub Registrar,

Thallakulam,

Madurai.

Page No.15 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3661W. A . ( M D ) N o . 2 7 9 3 o f 2 0 2 5

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

AND

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

gvn

JUDGMENT MADE IN

W.A. (MD) No.2793 of 2025

08 / 09 / 2026

Page No.16 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis