Madras High Court
Sunaiselvam vs The Inspector General Of ... on 18 November, 2022
W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
Sunaiselvam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil Sub Registrar Office,
Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.
4.Rajendran,
Assistant,
Office of the Sub Registrar Vasudevanallur,
Tirunelveli District.
5.Velu
6.Kadarkarai
7.Shanmugam (Died)
8.Poolar
9.Kaliappan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014
10.Boomani
11.Gurusamy ... Respondents
(Respondent No.10 is recorded as legal heirs of deceased seventh
respondent, vide Court order, dated 26.10.2022, vide memo filed, dated
26.10.2022, in W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
third respondent to strike off the registration of document No.1701/2014
on their file and pass such further or other orders as this Court.
For Petitioner : M/s.M.Saravanan
For R-1 to R-3 : M/s.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
For R-4 to R-11 : No appearance
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash a sale
deed in document No.1701 of 2014, dated 04.06.2014, on the file of the
third respondent herein.
2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the
impugned sale deed has been executed by respondents 5 to 10 in favour
of the eleventh respondent herein. The respondents 5 to 10 are the legal
heirs of one Arumugam and they claimed it to be their ancestral property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
respondents 5, 6 and 9 had filed O.S.No.181 of 1992 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, as against the vendor of
the writ petitioner, claiming partition. In the said suit, it was their
contention that, it is the ancestral property of one Arumugam and the
property has to be partitioned. In the said suit, the vendor of the writ
petitioner was arrayed as first defendant and the writ petitioner was
arrayed as seventh defendant.
4. The said suit was filed for partition. The trial Court after
contest, had dismissed the suit holding that the family of Arumugam do
not have any title over the property. The said judgment was delivered on
18.08.2001. The plaintiffs therein had filed A.S.No.48 of 2001 before the
Sub Court, Sankarankovil. The appeal was also dismissed on 30.01.2002,
confirming that the family of Arumugam has not established their title
over the property and hence, the prayer for partition is not maintainable.
The plaintiffs therein had not preferred any second appeal and the said
judgment has attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner was granted patta in patta No.1336 for S.No.666/7 and for
other survey numbers. The private respondents, namely, 5 to 10 herein,
after the dismissal of the civil suit and suppressing the grant of patta in
favour of the writ petitioner, had executed the impugned sale deed in
favour of the eleventh respondent herein. Hence, according to the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, the sale deed has been executed fraudulently
and hence, the same has to be struck down by this Court.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
they have already given a representation to the second respondent herein
on 06.06.2014. Though the second respondent has received the said
representation, no further progress has been made.
7. Though notice has been served and the private respondents are
represented through a Counsel, there is no representation on the side of
the private respondents on the last two occasions. Hence, this Court
proceeds to pass the following order:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014
"(i) The narration of the above said facts will clearly
indicate that the allegation made on the side of the writ
petitioner is serious in nature and it requires a proper
adjudication by the second respondent herein.
(ii) The second respondent is directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner, dated 06.06.2014, in the light
of the civil Court judgment and Section 77-A of the Registration
Act. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of
four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and the
respondents 5, 6, 8 to 11."
8. With the above said observation, the writ petition stands
allowed to the above said extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
18.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
btr
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil Sub Registrar Office,
Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
btr
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.9103 of 2014
18.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
