High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
B. Shanmugasundaramurthy
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar & Another
W.P.No.28869 of 2010
Decided on : 02-03-2011
Mandamus - Property Ownership Dispute - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a Mandamus to consider the petitioner's representation for alterations in registration entries, citing the need for the ownership dispute to be resolved by the Civil Court before making any changes. The court relied on the legal principle that unilateral cancellations of sale deeds without the express consent of the parties have no existence in the eye of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Mandamus to consider his representation for alterations in registration entries due to a property ownership dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the ownership dispute should be resolved by the Civil Court before making any changes.
Issues: Ownership dispute, alterations in registration entries, legality of unilateral cancellations of sale deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: Unilateral cancellations of sale deeds without the express consent of the parties have no existence in the eye of the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner advised to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief.
1. The petitioner has come to this Court by filing the writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2010 and pass order on merit.
2. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of plot nos.31, 32, 33 as per LP/R (CN) No.127/85 – Plots Layout plan approved by the Senior Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore-Periyar-Nilgris Region, Government of Tamilnadu and as per Document No.1592 of 2005 dated 20.05.2005 registered with the office of Sub Registrar, Thondamuthur as come to this Court with the prayer to issue writ of Mandamus to consider his representation dated 20.09.2010 whereby the petitioner has made a request to the Sub-Registrar, the 1st respondent herein to make alterations in registration entries made under Section 55(2) of Registration Act Rules 140 to 146 to avoid double registration and further encumbrance within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice dated 20.09.2010.
3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner purchased three house plots, namely, Plot Nos.31, 32 and 33 on 20.05.2005 from one Mr.V.Shanmugasundaram from Coimbatore Registration District, Thondamuthur Sub Registration District for the purpose of construction of residential buildings. After the registration, the petitioner is said to have fallen ill. Therefore, after getting recovered from his health problems on 08.11.2009, on making personal visit to the site, he had found construction of residential buildings in his own plots. On further verification, the petitioner came to know that one N.P.Suresh of Coimbatore, N.Magesh Kumar of Coimbatore and S.Sathish Saravanan and Roopa Prabakar of Coimbatore have started encroaching the petitioner's house plots and made construction of residential building without his knowledge.
4. Therefore, the petitioner immediately issued notice to all the people who were in illegal possession of his property, namely, the plot nos.31, 32 and 33 claiming his possession. The above mentioned persons denied access to the petitioner showing their documents of ownership created in their name with regards to the sale agreements and other documents related to. Subsequently, the petitioner with great pain had access to the documents in possession of the other encroachers who subsequently claimed to be the owner of his own plot nos.31, 32 and 33. When the documents has been detected from the Revenue records of the Veerakeralam Village, Thondamuthur Sub Registrar Office, the same were found to be created in their names creating fake title and ownership of the house plots and further the petitioner came to know that dual registration was made in the name of two different persons for three different properties.
5. But when the petitioner has purchased the properties on 20.05.2005 from one Mr.V.Shanmugasundaram by executing a valid Sale Deed for valuable consideration, there cannot be one more registration. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation dated 20.09.2010 seeking to make alterations in registration entries made under Section 55(2) of Registration Act Rules 140 to 146 to avoid double registration and further encumbrance within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice dated 20.09.2010, but no response came from the respondents. Hence the petitioner has come to this Court seeking a Mandamus to consider his representation dated 20.09.2010.
6. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that this Court cannot give any direction, much less any observation in favour of the petitioner for considering his representation for the reason that whether the petitioner is the owner or the other persons namely, N.P.Suresh of Coimbatore, N.Magesh Kumar of Coimbatore and S.Sathish Saravanan and Roopa Prabakar of Coimbatore are the owners are to be gone to by the Civil Court before carrying out alterations in the records of the Sub-Registrar. Otherwise, it will amount to effecting Unilateral Sale
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.