Madras High Court
S.Muthurajan vs The District Registrar on 4 September, 2024
W.P.No.24239 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.24239 of 2024
S.Muthurajan
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Registrar,
The District Registrar Office,
Opposite to Railway Station, Sukrawarpettai,
Gopalapuram,
Coimbatore District – 641 018.
2.The Sub Registrar,
The Sub Registrar Office,
Periyanayakkam Palayam,
Coimbatore District – 641 020.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the
restriction of transfer/alienation made pursuant to the order of this Court in
Contempt Petition No.2324 of 2014, dated 09.12.2014 (L.No.33 of 2014
dated 18.12.2014) in document numbers 8451/2013, 8453/2013 and
8454/2013 dated 15.07.2013 registered at the office of the 2nd respondent
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24239 of 2024
Sub-Registrar, with relate to the properties in Sarkarsamakulam Village,
Coimbatore District bearing survey numbers 607/2D, 607/2C, 607/2B,
607/2A, 606/2B3, 606/2B2, 606/2B1, 604/2C, 604/2B and 604/2A as the
said Contempt Petition No.2324 of 2014 itself has been closed by the order
of this Court on 16.02.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thilageswaran
For Respondent : Mr.T.Chezhiyan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents to
remove the entry made in the encumbrance certificate relating to the
properties in S.Nos. 607/2D, 607/2C, 607/2B, 607/2A, 606/2B3, 606/2B2,
606/2B1, 604/2C, 604/2B and 604/2A, Sarkarsamakulam Village,
Coimbatore District, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Contempt
Petition No.2324 of 2014, dated 09.12.2014, pursuant to the order passed by
this Court in Contempt Petition No.2324 of 2014, dated 09.12.2014.
2. The petitioner purchased above mentioned properties under
three sale deeds dated 15.07.2013 from one Balaji. One Varadharajan filed
a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 26.02.2007 against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner's vendor Balaji in O.S.No.755 of 2007 on the file of the
Additional District Judge, Coimbatore and the suit was dismissed on
31.03.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the said Varadharajan filed an appeal
in A.S.No.330 of 2011 before this Court. In a petition for interim order in
M.P.No.1 of 2011, the said Varadharajan also obtained prohibitory orders
against alienation of the subject property. Despite the same, sale deed in
favour of the petitioner was executed by said Balaji. Therefore, complaining
violation of interim orders, the Contempt Proceedings were initiated against
the said Balaji and the petitioner in Contempt Petition No.2324 of 2014.
3. When the Contempt Petition came up for hearing before this
Court, the petitioner was directed to deposit the original sale deed and the
Sub Registrar, Periyanayakkakn Palayam was also directed to make an entry
in the relevant register to the effect that no document relating to the subject
property shall be registered until further orders of this Court.
4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, an entry was
made in register incorporating the prohibitory orders. Subsequently, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal filed by said Varadharajan in A.S.No.330 of 2011 was dismissed by
the Division Bench of this Court by judgment and decree dated 12.01.2023.
Therefore, as a consequence, the contempt petition was also closed by an
order dated 16.02.2023. Even after closing of the contempt petition, the
entry made in the register of the second respondent pursuant to the interim
order passed in the contempt petition still remains and therefore, the
petitioner is not able to deal with the property. Hence, the petitioner has
come by way of this petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the main First Appeal filed by Varadharajan was already dismissed as a
necessary consequence, the contempt petition was also closed by this Court
by order dated 16.02.2023. In such circumstances, the respondents are not
justified in refusing to remove the entry made pursuant to the interim order
passed in the contempt petition.
6. The second respondent filed counter stating that the entry
made by the second respondent in the Register as per the directions issued
by this Court and therefore the relevant entry cannot be removed, unless the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner produces an order from this Court for removal of the entry.
7. At the time final order was passed in the contempt petition
filed by Varadharajan, closing the Contempt Proceedings, the petitioner
should have brought it to the notice of the Court and should have obtained
an order for removal of the entry made in the Register pursuant to the
interim orders. Now, it appears the main First Appeal filed by Varadharajan
was dismissed and as a consequence, the contempt petition was also closed
by this Court. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to seek registration of
the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.330 of 2011 and the final order
passed in Contempt Petition No.2324 of 2014 before the second respondent.
It is also open to the petitioner to get clarificatory order from the Court
which passed final orders in the contempt petition.
8. With this liberty, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
04.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ub
To
1.The District Registrar,
The District Registrar Office,
Opposite to Railway Station, Sukrawarpettai,
Gopalapuram,
Coimbatore District – 641 018.
2.The Sub Registrar,
The Sub Registrar Office,
Periyanayakkam Palayam,
Coimbatore District – 641 020.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
04.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
