Haji Mohamed vs Lakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 18096 Mad

                                                            1

                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED : 03.09.2021

                                                        CORAM :

                                   THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

                                               C.R.P.(MD).No.305 of 2021

                  Haji Mohamed                              ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
                                                           Vs.

                  Lakshmi                                   ...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

                  PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
                  Code, to set aside the order dated 18.08.2017 passed in E.P.No.22 of 2011 in
                  O.S.No.59 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai, by
                  allowing this Civil Revision Petition.


                                   For Petitioner     :Mr.Parisuthanathan
                                   For Respondent     :Mr.N.Marimuthu

                                                     ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order,

dated 18.08.2017 in E.P.No.22 of 2011 in O.S.No.59 of 2009 passed by the

learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.

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

2.The revision petitioner is plaintiff and the respondent is defendant in

the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2009, on the file of the learned Principal District

Judge, Pudukkottai. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid

suit sought for relief to the respondent to execute a sale deed in respect of

suit schedule of property in favour of the petitioner as per the agreement,

dated 06.08.2007 and alternatively directing the defendant to repay the

amount received from the plaintiff and the said suit was decreed as prayed for

with costs and six months time was granted for execution. By strength of the

decree, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed a petition in E.P.No.22 of

2011 in O.S.No.59 of 2009 under Order 21, Rule 32(5) & 34 of Civil

Procedure Code, to execute the sale deed as per the decree passed by the

Court below in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property. The Court

below has passed an order, dated 18.08.2017, as the document claimed by the

decree holder was already registered as per the decree, this execution petition

was closed as infructuous. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision

petitioner is before this Court.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit

that already sale deed was executed and the same was registered, but, was not

released since an enquiry was initiated under Section 47(A) of Stamps Act

and the same is pending.

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

4.He also relied upon the Judgment passed by this Court, dated

19.02.2015 in the case of S.Rajalakshmi Vs. The Sub-Registrar,

Kodambakkam, Chennai, in WP(MD) No.4249 of 2015. The Paragraph

No.4 is extracted hereunder:

“In the light of the above, there will be a direction to respondent to return the sale deed bearing document No.4766/2014 registered on 10.12.2014 within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order subject to the following conditions.

(i). The Registering Authority while releasing the documents shall make necessary endorsement on the original documents to the effect that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act are pending.

(ii).The Registering Authority shall make necessary entries in the register maintained regarding the pendency of 47-A proceedings in respect of the documents subject matter of the registration so as to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate for the benefit of the purchasers.

(iii).Pending final decision in respect of the valuation under Section 47-A(i), as per Section 47- A(4) there shall be a charge over the properties in favour of the Government in respect of the unpaid value of the stamp duty.

(iv) After the entire proceedings under Section 47-A are completed, on production of the original https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

documents by the petitioner, the Registering Authority shall make necessary endorsement removing the earlier endorsement clearly stating that the entire amount of stamp duty under the documents have been paid in full and return the same.

(v) After such endorsement, the Registering Authority shall make necessary entry of the completion of 47-A proceedings in the register maintained by them so as to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate .”

5.In view of the aforesaid submission, this Civil Revision Petition is

allowed by setting aside the order, dated 18.08.2017 in E.P.No.22 of 2011 in

O.S.No.59 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge,

Pudukkottai. Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to the

Sub-Registrar, Gandharvvakottai, Pudukottai District, to release the sale deed

after making endorsement as stated in the aforesaid Judgment. No costs.

            Index :Yes/No                                                            03.09.2021
            Internet:Yes/No
            ksa

Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

To

1. The Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Gandharvvakottai, Pudukottai District

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

S.ANANTHI, J.

ksa

Order made in C.R.P.(MD).No.305 of 2021

03.09.2021

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