SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Mad) 269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
S. Praveen Bohra – Petitioner
Vs.
Joint-I Sub-Registrar (In the cadre of District Registrar) Coimbatore – Respondent
W.P. No. 36079 of 2015
Decided On : 04-03-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Ramu.
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Dig Vijaya Pandian, Additional Government Pleader.

Headnote:Registration Act, 1908 Section 71 Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226 Registered sale deed was cancelled by the respondent – same was executed in petitioner side in the case in the court – Held by the court that the attachment orders can not bar document that has been registered – Hence , it was told that the property that has been attached its sale is legal and hence it was ordered that the documents has to be registered and to send the same to the petitioner favour – Hence the petition was allowed.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent, dated 26.10.2015, in cancelling the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, bearing P. No. 175 of 2011 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to register the sale deed in P. No. 175 of 2011, dated 11.11.2011 and presented on 23.11.2011 and return the original document of sale deed after due registration to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this Writ Petition, are as follows:-

(i) The subject property situated at old Door No. 20B, new Door Nos. 85 and 86, comprised in T.S. No. 8/516 part and 519 part and new T.S. No. 8/843/2, with land measuring an extent of 2950 sq. ft. and building thereon at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore, was originally purchased by one Sivathal and her husband K. Rangasamy, by registered sale deed dated 11.03.1993, registered as Document No. 1886 of 1993 in the office of the District Registrar Office, Coimbatore. Subsequently, K. Rangasamy died on 29.08.1996, leaving behind his wife Sivathal, two sons and three daughters, as his legal heirs. Thereafter, an agreement of sale was entered into by petitioner's deceased Uncle Ashok Bohra and the owners of the property viz. Sivathal and others. Since, a dispute arose, a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 39 of 2004 was filed before the District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. II, Coimbatore. Subsequently, two legal heirs viz., the two daughters of Sivathal, filed two separate suits for partition in O.S. No. 351 of 2009 before the District Court, Coimbatore and O.S. No. 169 of 2010 before the District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No. I, Coimbatore, which were subsequently withdrawn by them. The suits in O.S. Nos. 39 of 2004 and 351 of 2009 were tried and they were referred to Mediation, wherein, the parties to the suit entered into a compromise. All the legal heirs numbering nine, whom includes grandsons of late K. Rangasamy and his wife Sivathal, executed a registered sale deed in respect of the property situated at old Door No. 20B, new Door Nos. 85 and 86, comprised in T.S. No. 8/516 part and 519 part and new T.S. No. 8/843/2, with land measuring an extent of 2950 sq.ft. and building thereon at R.S. Puram, Coimbatore, on 11.11.2011, in favour of the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and the said sale deed was presented for registration on 23.11.2011 in the office of the respondent for registration by the vendors and the petitioner. All the vendors and petitioner have admitted due execution of the sale deed before the respondent. Even though, the guideline of the property was Rs. 85,00,000/- the stamp duty was accordingly paid on one crore ten lakhs on the guideline value and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 8,79,100/- towards stamp duty and requisite registration fee.

(ii) But, due to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent kept the document as pending document in P. No. 175 of 2011. Further, the respondent failed to return the registered document to the petitioner. On enquiry, the respondent orally informed that there was an order of attachment of property passed by a Civil Court and assigned only pending document number. The respondent refused to register the sale deed. The petitioner aggrieved over the inaction of the respondent, issued a legal notice to the respondent in the month of June, 2014. Though, the said notice was received by the respondent, he has neither chosen to receive the notice nor registered and returned the document. Hence, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 12314 of 2015 before this Court. By order, dated 24.04.2015, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation dated 23.06.2014, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the representation within four weeks from the date



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top