Proper execution of cancellation deeds and conducting enquiries before registration is essential under Section 26(i)(k) of the Indian Stamps and Registration Act.

ORDER :

(i) W.P. No.s13729 of 2015:

The writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :

“...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in registering the documents registered as document Nos.D/1573/2015, 1574/2015, 1575/2015, 1576/2015, 1577/2015 and 1578/2015 all dated 10.03.2015, in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and accordingly, set aside the same and pass such other order…”

(ii) W.P. No.20850 of 2017 :

The writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :

“...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to conduct further proceedings in pursuance of the Memo No.S/1306/2015, dated 29.12.2015 and the show cause notice No.G1/684/2017, dated 12.04.2017 issued by the 4th respondent on the basis of the report of the 4th respondent bearing No.G1/3213/2015 dated 30.05.2016 and further direct the respondent Nos.2a to 4 to pass final orders within one month and pass such other order…”

2. As the issue, petitioners as well as the respondents involved in both these cases is one and the same, these writ petitions are decided by way of a common order.

3. The brief facts are that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 (in W.P. No.13729 of 2015), trustees in the 4th respondent Trust, along with the respondent Nos.8 & 9 approached the petitioners stating that the Board of Trustees of the 4th respondent Trust have resolved to sell its property admeasuring Ac.1.10 cents equivalent to 665 Ankanas with patta No.82 in Sy. No.887 of Nellore Bit-II, near Balijapalem, with a view to construct Kalyana Mandapam. They offered to sell the said property for a total consideration of Rs.2,70,00,000/- and believing their statements, the petitioners have agreed to purchase and paid an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- out of Rs.2,70,00,000/- towards part sale consideration and accordingly, an Agreement of Sale was executed on 09.02.2015. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.4 to 7 had also agreed to register the said document. However, the 5th respondent suddenly reported ill and sent her Special General Power of Attorney in favour of another Trustee i.e. respondent No.6, who was registered as Special Power of Attorney No.1/2015 before the Joint Sub-Registrar-I of District Registrar Cadre, Vellore, Tamilnadu, on 10.02.2015, and sent the same through the respondent Nos.8 and 9 to Nellore. On receipt of the Special General Power of Attorney, the Agreement of Sale was presented for registration before the 3rd respondent by paying an amount of Rs.12,15,200/- towards stamp duty and registration fee and other charges and the same was registered as document No.872/2015 on 11.02.2015.

4. As per the terms of the Agreement of Sale dated 09.02.2015 registered vide document No.872/2015, dated 11.02.2015, the total consideration payable was Rs.2,70,00,000/- out of which Rs.90,00,000/- was paid.

(a) The vendors should fence the entire property, survey the area and extent of the land, deliver the original title deeds and settle the claims in O.S. No.9 of 2008 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Nellore; and in O.S. No.86 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Judge, Nellore.

(b) The balance of consideration should be paid on or before 02.04.2015 by cheque or cash and registration of sale deed was to be obtained.

(c) If terms and conditions are not fulfilled within time, extension of time was agreed.

5. The respondents failed to comply with any of their obligations under the Agreement of Sale as stated above, in spite of repeated reminders by the petitioners from the 2nd we