WP/40352/2026 of ESWAR.S Vs THE SECRETARY on 5 October 2026

Order

This writ petition is filed for the following relief: “To appoint the 1st petitioner as guardian of her husband K.Sekar and permit the 1st petitioner to recover the mortgage amounts due, together with interest accrued thereon, under the mortgage deeds registered as Doc.No.1644/2023 dated 09.05.2023 on the file of SRO, Paramathi velur, Doc.No.1572/2018 dated 18.06.2018 on the file of SRO, Chettikulam, Doc.No.3250/2021 dated 13.10.2021 on the file of SRO, Velur and Doc.No.2496/2021 dated 25.08.2021 on the file of SRO, Velur and in the event of necessity to sell or mortgage the immovable properties standing in the name of her husband K.Sekar under Doc.No.3782/2022 dated 08.08.2022 on the file of SRO, Musiri and Doc.No.962/2012 dated 30.08.2012 on the file of SRO, Velayuthampalayam, Karur to cancel the MOD Doc.No.154/2016 dated 20.01.2016 on the file of SRO, Velur in the name of her husband and to operate and withdraw money from bank account Nos.6315216829, 6315192862, 6402775015 and 7508908551 and use the proceeds thereof towards the treatment of the 1st petitioner’s husband K.Sekar and also towards the education expenses and expenses incurred for the maintenance of the 1st petitioner’s children i.e., the petitioners 2 and 3 in consonance with earlier W.P.No.20544 of 2025 order dated 11.06.2025.”

2. The petitioner in effect has converted the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India into a civil court by seeking a relief that is covered by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that four of the properties standing in the name of her husband are covered under mortgage deeds apart from an agreement for deposit of title deeds with M/s.Indian Bank, Velur Branch. The further contention is that the loan has been repaid. Therefore, the document requires to be cancelled for which she needs to be appointed as a Guardian.

4. It is also her contention that her husband had advanced money by way of mortgage to different persons and that these amounts have to be recovered. She would submit that the amounts are required for the treatment of her husband. Therefore, she has come forward with this writ petition for mandamus seeking the relief extracted supra.

5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the records.

6. Mortgages are covered under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, herein after called the Act. Section 60 of the Act discusses the rights of the mortgagor to redeem the same would read as follows: “Right of mortgagor to redeem At any time after the principal money has become 14[due], the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver 15[to the mortgagor the mortgage- deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee], (b) where the mortgagee is in possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct, or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) to have registered an acknowledgment in writing that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished: Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by 16[decree] of a Court. The right conferred by this section is called a right to redeem and a suit to enforce it is called a suit for redemption. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to render invalid any provision to the effect that, if the time fixed for payment of the principal money has been allowed to pass or no such time has been fixed, the mortgagee shall be entitled to reasonable notice before payment or tender of such money.

7. From a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is clear that the relief claimed by the petitioner is one for redemption with an added relief to be appointed as a guardian. The aforesaid Section provides that a right to redeem can be enforced by filing a suit for redemption. The petitioner also seeks recovery of money from the persons to whom her husband had lent money. The remedy available is to file a suit for recovery of money. Therefore, when there is an exclusive procedure provided, the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the petitioner can seek to be appointed as guardian in the proceedings before the Civil Court.

8. The remedy available is therefore only by initiating civil proceedings. The petitioner is now seeking to circumvent that process which involves the payment of court fees by filing this writ petition for mandamus. In view of the fact that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. 05-10-2026 KAN

To

1. The Secretary Department of Health and Family welfare, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.

2. The District Collector Namakkal District, 1st floor, Main Building, District collectorate, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal - 637003.

3. The District Collector Karur District, Sh-874, First Floor Collector Office, Karur, Tamilnadu - 639007.

4. The District Collector Trichy District, RM2F+468, Raja Colony, Tiruchirappalli - 620001.

5. The Dean Government Medical College Namakkal, 353, Master Plan Complex, Siluvampatti, Namakkal.

P.T.ASHA J. KAN WP No. 40352 of 2026 05-10-2026