Madras High Court
B.Asokan vs / on 6 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD)No.26521 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD)No.26521 of 2024
B.Asokan ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Santhome High Road, Chennai.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Nilakkottai,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd
respondent in impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal No.
RFL/Nilakkottai/99/2024 dated 27.09.2024 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed
submitted by the petitioner for landed property for an extent of 1.98 acres
comprised in Survey No.300/27 situated at Kovanoothu Village,
Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District within a time frame that may be
stipulated by this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.26521 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the second respondent dated 27.09.2024 thereby refused to register the
sale deed, which was presented for registration for the property
comprised in Survey No.300/27, measuring to an extent of 1.98 acres
situated at Kovanoothu Village, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.
2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's vendor, one
Anguraj had purchased the subject property from one Prema, by the
registered sale deed dated 19.10.2002 vide Document No.1819/2002, and
he is entitled to sell the property in favour of the petitioner and executed
a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and when it was presented for
registration, the second respondent refused to register the same vide his
refusal check slip dated 27.09.2024 on the ground that in respect of the
subject property, there are various registrations already made.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner's vendor's vendor, namely Prema had executed a power
of attorney in favour of one Meganathan. On the strength of the power of
attorney, the said Meganathan executed sale deeds in favour of third
parties including the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner's vendor,
N.Anguraj, filed a suit in O.S.No.266 of 2013 on the file of the District
Munsif, Nilakkottai, seeking for declaration and permanent injunction, as
against the persons who have already purchased the same property. The
said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 07.04.2016 as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
against the persons, who have purchased the same property, which
became final, since no appeal has been preferred by other purchasers.
Now, the second respondent refused to register the sale deed on the
ground that various persons had purchased the very same property by
subdividing as house plots. After passing of the judgment and decree in
favour of the petitioner's vendor, he was also issued with patta No.1983
for the subject property, Therefore, now, the petitioner's vendor is
entitled to sell the property in favour of the petitioner and has executed
the sale deed and presented for registration.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner's vendor
had purchased the property from one Prema's power of attorney namely,
Meganathan. Whereas the said Prema had cancelled the said power of
attorney executed in favour of the said Meganathan and had also
executed another power of attorney in favour of one Sivagami, who in
turn, had sold out the house plots in favour of various persons, including
the subject property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The petitioner's vendor filed a suit in O.S.No.266 of 2013 on
the file of the District Munsif, Nilakkottai, seeking for declaration and
permanent injunction and the same was decreed vide judgment and
decree dated 07.04.2016, declaring that the subject property is in favour
of the petitioner's vendor, as against the persons, who have purchased the
very same property, against which, no appeal has been preferred.
Therefore, the petitioner's vendor has perfect title over the subject
property and executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, the impugned refusal check slip dated
27.09.2024 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly,
the impugned refusal check slip dated 27.09.2024 is hereby quashed.
The petitioner is directed to re-present the sale deed executed in favour
of the petitioner for registration and on receipt of the same, the second
respondent shall register the same and release the sale deed in favour of
the petitioner. It is made clear that if there is any objection raised by any
other rival parties, the second respondent shall conduct an enquiry and
pass orders to register the sale deed, in the light of the observations made
above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
06.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TO:-
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Santhome High Road, Chennai.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Nilakkottai,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sm
Order made in
Dated:
06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
