Madras High Court
A.Padma vs The District Registrar ... on 2 January, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.P. No.35413 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P. No.35413 of 2023 and
W.M.P. No.35371 of 2023
A.Padma ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Registrar (Administration)
Salem (West), Salem
2. The Sub Registrar,
Sooramangalam, Salem
3. K.M.Ulaganambi ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records with respect
of the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in
Na.Ka.No.2295/E4/E6/2023 dated 28.08.2023 and quash the same
consequently directing the 1st respondent to cancel the sale deed document
dated 30.11.2010, registered before the 2nd respondent in Document
No.8859 of 2010, within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Sathish
Additional Government Pleader
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.35413 of 2023
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
to call for the records with respect of the impugned proceedings of the 1st
respondent in Na.Ka.No.2295/E4/E6/2023 dated 28.08.2023 and quash the
same consequently directing the 1st respondent to cancel the sale deed
document dated 30.11.2010, registered before the 2nd respondent in
Document No.8859 of 2010, within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this
Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the
petitioner executed a settlement deed infavour of the petitioner for the
property comprised in SF No.39/2B2 of Narasothipatti Village to an extent of
17 cents. One Alagiri filed a suit for specific performance against the
petitioner and her father in O.S.No.153 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Judge,
Salem, based on an fabricated sale agreement and managed to get an ex-parte
decree on 20.02.2007 pursuant to which, the said Alagiri made over his right
on the said ex-parte decree in favour of the 3rd respondent and based on the
ex-parte decree, the 3rd respondent filed an execution application and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
subsequently, the Executing Court executed a sale deed in favour of the 3rd
respondent. The said sale deed was also registered before the 2nd respondent.
Thereafter, the said ex-parte decree was set aside and the suit was heard on
merits and after trial, the suit was dismissed. Against which, the 3rd
respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2016 and the appellate Court also
dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019. Aggrieved
by the same, the 3rd respondent filed a Second Appeal in SA.SR.No.12994 of
2019. However, he had not taken steps to number the same for the reasons
best known to him. Hence, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent to
cancel the sale deed executed in favour of the 3rd respondent which was
registered before the 2nd respondent based on the the ex-parte decree. The
1st respondent, vide his proceedings dated 28.08.2023, passed the impugned
order rejecting the claim of the petitioner holding that the 1st respondent has
no jurisdiction to cancel the said document and further, the appeal in
SA.SR.No.12994 of 2019 is pending before this Court, which is under
challenge before this Court.
3. Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice
for the respondents 1 and 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Since there is no adverse order is to be passed by this Court against
the 3rd respondent, notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with.
5. Heard and perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the disputed document was registered before the 2nd
respondent based on the ex-parte decree. Subsequently, the said ex-parte
decree was set aside and the trial Court, after hearing the suit, dismissed the
same on merits. Against the dismissal of the suit, an appeal was filed and the
same was also dismissed which means, the setting aside of the ex-parte
decree is confirmed by the lower appellate Court and as on date, there is no
decree at all. Therefore, the disputed document registered with the 2nd
respondent is without any right and title. However, when a document is
registered through Court based on an ex-parte decree and subsequently, when
the ex-parte decree is set aside, then the said document has to be cancelled
through Court only.
7. The petitioner ought to have approached the Court which executed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Sale Deed in favour of the 3rd respondent based on the ex-parte decree
and communicated the same to the Registrar to register the said document, for
the cancellation of the said document, whereas, the petitioner, instead of
approaching the said Court, he has approached the 1st respondent. Though
the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner, as stated above, the
petitioner can approach the Court which executed the Sale Deed based on the
ex-parte decree and work out his remedy in the manner known to law.
8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
02.01.2024
ksa-2
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The District Registrar (Administration)
Salem (West), Salem
2. The Sub Registrar,
Sooramangalam, Salem
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
Ksa-2
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
