Madras High Court
K.Lingadevi vs The District Registrar on 21 September, 2021
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
and
WMP.No.22023 of 2021
K.Lingadevi ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Coimbatore.
2. M.S.Anandharaj, ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certorari, calling for the records relating to the
notice issued by the 1st respondent in No.3874/2021 dated 01.09.2021 and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Government Advocate
----
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice
No.3874/Aa1/2021, dated 01.09.2021 issued by the first
respondent/District Registrar, Coimbatore.
2. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner of the
undivided half share comprised in Old T.S.No.5/272 Part and New
T.S.No.5/296 Part.No.2, Otthachakkaram Street, Vadapurasiruni,
Coimbatore District, measuring an extent of 468 sqft and in the same
survey number in another property measuring an extent of 152 sqft and
392 sqft. The property in the same survey number measuring an extent of
390 sqft having total extent of 1402 sqft., with building. The aforesaid
property was purchased from Bramaiah and Lakshmiammal in the name of
petitioner's father and his brothers, namely, Vijayalingam and
Saravanalingam and assigned as Door Nos.148-149, 149A, 149B and
149C and the said property was assessed to property tax, electricity
connection and water connection. On 02.03.2020, the said Vijayalingam's
family members, namely, Jayakani, Jayaseelingam, Padmashreelingam and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
Lingabarath had sold their half share in the above said property in favour
of the petitioner by way of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1456 of 2020.
In the meanwhile, Saravanalingam died as a bachelor since then the
petitioner is in joint possession and enjoyment of the said property.
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the 1st
respondent/District Registrar to cancel the said sale deeds. Also, the
Power of Attorney was also given by the petitioner in favour of one Akbar
Basha to maintain the said property. Subsequently, his mother
M.Selvamani had purchased the above said property through Court
auction registered vide Doc.No. 3249 of 2000 and possession was taken
on 01.03.2003 by way of E.P.No.29 of 2001. Since then, he is in
possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, he has stated that the
petitioner's father preferred in S.A.No.547 of 2001 and CRP(NPD).No.299
of 2003 before this court and the same was ordered on 29.03.2019 by
canceling the said sale deeds purchased by her father in respect of his
brothers sale deeds vide Document Nos.1641/1986, 3482/2001, 847/2002
and his possession was also confirmed on 16.10.2019. In view of
suppressing the aforesaid facts, the sale deed vide Doc.Nos.1456 of 2020
and 1459 of 2020 were registered fraudulently before the Joint-I, Sub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
Registrar Office, Coimbatore. In this regard, the second respondent was
not aware of the judgment passed in S.A. No.547 of 2001 and CRP(NPD).
No.299 of 2003 and taking steps to set aside the said judgment, without
taking into consideration of the 1st respondent. Based on the complaint,
the first respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to attend the
enquiry on 07.09.2021 and she had appeared with relevant documents and
was directed to file a written statement. Further, the 1st respondent has no
right to conduct the enquiry with regard to the disputed question of facts.
Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for
seeking appropriate relief.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that there is an averment
made by the second respondent, wherein, the petitioner has purchased the
aforesaid property by way of Court auction in E.P.No. 29 of 2001. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner's father preferred S.A.No.547 of 2001 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
CRP(NPD).No.299 of 2003 before this Court and the same was ordered by
canceling the said Document Nos.1641 of 1986, 3482 of 2001 and 847 of
2002 purchased by the father of the petitioner and his brothers. Further,
his possession was also confirmed on 16.10.2019. While that being the
case, the petitioner is permitted to approach the competent civil Court, can
decide the aforesaid issue of title and hence, the first respondent/District
Registrar is not a competent authority to decide the same.
5. It is also seen that the petitioner was of not aware of the
judgment and decree passed in S.A.No. 547 of 2001 and
CRP(NPD).No.299 of 2003 and she has not stated in his petition for
taking steps to set aside the said judgment and decree to contest the same.
Without considering the said facts, the first respondent called upon the
petitioner to attend the enquiry on 07.08.2021 with all relevant documents.
Hence, as there is a dispute with regard to the title of the aforesaid
property, whether the petitioner's father had the title or the second
respondent purchased the property by way of Court auction and the same
can be decided before the competent civil Court not before this Court.
While that being the case, the petitioner cannot her claim before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
authority, has no right to consider the representation sent by the second
respondent.
6. It is also seen that notice was issued by the competent authority
to the second respondent along with 11 persons to find out any forged
documents have been executed by the petitioner herein, or the second
respondent directed to appear before the competent authority with all
relevant documents, namely, the title and revenue documents. If there is
any cases are pending or any other orders obtained from the competent
civil Court by the petitioner and the same have to be produced before the
competent authority to seek appropriate relief. Hence, in view of the
above, the petitioner's prayer cannot be granted to the petitioner and the
petitioner has to approach the first respondent regarding any forged
documents being executed by her. Also, the competent authority can take
appropriate action on the sale deeds vide Doc.Nos.1456 and 1459 of 2020
registered fraudulently, before the Joint-I, Sub Registrar Office,
Coimbatore, under the provision of Cr.P.C., and the said act of the
authorities have been confirmed by the Government by way of passing a
new act as per the same. The first respondent/District Registrar, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
empowered to conduct an enquiry in respect of the aforesaid sale deeds
registered before the Sub Registrar Office and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the
authorities concerned to prove her case.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
28.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
gba/msm
To
The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
gba/msm
W.P.No.20763 of 2021
28.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
