Madras High Court
K.Chellaiah vs V.Raja on 13 March, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.287 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.287 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.2057 and 4242 of 2025
K.Chellaiah ... Appellant
Vs.
1.V.Raja
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2783 of 2025, dated 30.01.2025.
For Appellant :Mr.P.Krishnasamy
For R1 :Mr.K.Sankar
For R2 :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
***
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 11:45:34 am )
W.A.(MD)No.287 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
The present writ appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent in the writ
petition against the order, dated 30.01.2025, passed in W.P.(MD)No.2783 of
2025.
2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to
direct the 1st respondent Sub Registrar to consider and pass orders to remove
the entries in encumbrance certificate (agreement deed) Document No.671 of
2024, dated 05.02.2024, in patta No.23811, resurvey No.20/2B situated at
Thankankulam Village, Madurai District, based on the petitioner's
representation, dated 18.10.2024, within the time limit that may be stipulated
by this Court.
3.The writ petitioner V.Raja was the owner of the property comprised
in re-survey No.20/2B situated at Thankankulam Village, Madurai District.
The writ petitioner and his brother jointly purchased the said property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 11:45:34 am )
Thereafter, they intended to sell the subject property and entered into agreement
with the 2nd respondent Chellaiah. As per the terms of the agreement, the
advance amount was paid and the same was registered in Document No.671 of
2024. However, the 2nd respondent Chellaiah failed to pay the balance sale
consideration. Hence, the writ petitioner could not deal with the property
because of the entry of the sale agreement. Since the agreement is registered
the writ petitioner Raja came up with a petition to remove the said entry.
4. The Writ Court has considered the contention of the writ petitioner
and has held since the agreement for sale is a registered document, the entry
cannot be removed unless cancellation for agreement for sale or by way of
declaration to declare the agreement for sale as null and void by the competent
Court. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition namely Chellaiah is not aggrieved
over this portion of the order. The Writ Court further held that the pendency of
agreement for sale is not an impediment for the writ petitioner to deal with the
subject property. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition namely Chellaiah is
aggrieved over this portion of the order and has filed the present writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 11:45:34 am )
5. The contention of the appellant Chellaiah is that he had entered
into an agreement for sale and the same was registered in Document No.671 of
2024. The subject property is owned by joint owners which is evident though
revenue patta No.23811. He was ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract but the contract could not concluded due to the delay caused by the
writ petitioner and the delay in not due to appellant. The said contention
cannot be accepted. If at all there is some delay, the appropriate remedy for the
appellant is to approach the Civil Court. As on date, no suit is filed by the
appellant.
6. The next contention of the appellant is that the Writ Court has
allowed the writ petitioner to dispose of the property and the same would result
in multiplicity of litigation. Further, it is the writ petitioner who did not come
forward to complete the contract and the appellant was ready and willing to
perform the contract. The Writ Court ought to have granted opportunity to the
appellant. The writ petitioner suppressed the material facts. All these
contentions ought to have been raised in a civil suit. Therefore, the said plea of
the appellant who is an agreement holder cannot be considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 11:45:34 am )
7. The next contention of the appellant is that the observation by the
Writ Court that the pendency of the agreement is not an impediment to deal
with the subject property would foreclosure his right, further based on this
observation, if the writ petitioner registered the sale deed in favour of a 3rd
party, the appellant's right and interest over the property would be at peril and
the appellant has invested huge money in the said property. All these
contentions cannot be accepted for the sole reason that the appellant has not
filed any civil suit as on date to enforce his agreement to sale. Hence, the said
plea is rejected.
8. For the reasons stated supra, the writ appeal is dismissed,
confirming the order passed in the writ petition. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
13.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 11:45:34 am )
To:
The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 11:45:34 am )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
13.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 11:45:34 am )
