Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
N. Rajaram – Appellant
Versus
R. Murali and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P. (NPD). No. 1987 of 2014, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014
Decided On : 03-07-2019
Civil Procedure Code - section 146 - Order 9 - Rule 13 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - suit schedule property - sale deed – Acquisition of Land - Under these circumstances, the 1st respondent approached P.R. Ramamurthy who facilitated the sale to him in 2003. The said P.R. Ramamurthy, who is the husband and father of his vendors is said to have informed the 1st respondent that his relative, the petitioner herein had obtained a decree in the suit for specific performance in respect of the suit schedule properties measuring 1680 sq. ft. at 465, Mahatma Gandhi Road Pondicherry on 17.07.2006 and asked the 1st respondent to vacate the suit schedule property and offered to repay the actual sale consideration that was paid by him during - learned Principle Sub Judge, Pondicherry allowed I.A. No. 134 of 2008 filed by the 1st respondent/3 rd party. The 1st respondent in his affidavit claims that he had purchased the suit schedule property vide two registered sale deeds dated 04.12.2003 and 08.12.2003 from one said wife of P.R. Ramamurthy and their son Thiru. Angoras – Held, Before parting, I would like to suggest a few changes to the prevailing practices which can be adopted to the benefit of everybody. It would be advisable as a prudent practice that in all proceedings relating to immovable property particularly in a suit for partition and/or for specific performance and in a suit for a declaration of title over immovable properties, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar should be intimated about the pendency of the litigation and appropriate entry should be made in the registers regarding pendency of such litigation in a court proceeding so that it gets reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate. Such intimation should not be construed as an injunction but should merely serve an interest of piece of information to protect the purchasers who end up investing in such properties which are subject to litigations pendent lite as prospective purchases are not prohibited - This would not only discourage purchase of properties under litigation but also help the court to arrive at a proper conclusion as to whether the pendent lite purchase without permission of the Court was bona fide or not. If purchase is made of property under litigation, it would be calculated risk which the purchaser would have taken while making such purchase - Registrar General of this court is therefore directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai with a covering letter to suitably direct all the jurisdictional Sub Registrars in the State to accept such entries to be made in the Register of property to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate giving particulars of the pending proceedings in respect of immovable properties to enable a free flow of information regarding the status of property under litigation - Registrar General of this court also directed to issue an administrative circulars to all the courts within the jurisdiction of this High Court to insist on the plaintiffs in such suits to intimate the jurisdictional Sub-Registrars regarding pendency of the suit relating to immovable properties. This would not only weed out unnecessary litigations but also caution prospective buyers before buying properties which are subject matter of litigations - Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
C. Saravanan, J.
1. The petitioner is an agreement holder had allegedly signed an agreement dated 23.09.1994 to purchase the suit schedule property from late. Kothandapani through his Power of Attorney namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents.
2. The said Kothandapani had earlier executed a power of attorney dated 07.07.1994 in favour of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents.
3. The said agreement dated 23.09.1994 was allegedly signed between the petitioner and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th respondents herein as the power of attorney of the said Kothandapani during his lifetime. The said Kothandapani died intestate on 21.02.1995 was impleaded as her legal representatives.
4. After the suit was filed, the 1st defendant V. Kuppammal, the mother of late Kothandapani also died on 10.06.1998. Therefore, the 5th respondent was impleaded as 5th defendant on 25.01.1999 as her legal representative.
5. The 1st defendant had allegedly executed a Will in favour of her daughter Kamalam 5th respondent before her death.
6. The 6th Respondent was also impleaded as 6th defendant to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as latter had filed O.P. No. 20 of 1994 claiming himself to be legatee of Veerappa Pillai, the husband of 1st defendant V. Kuppammal under a will dated 20.02.1995.
7. The 7th and 8th respondents herein were impleaded as 7th and 8th defendants pursuant to an order of the said court on 30.06.2003 as an attempt was made to register sale deed dated 15.05.1998 to transfer the suit schedule property to them by the 1st defendant V. Kuppammal.
8. The petitioner claimed that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as advance to the power of attorneys namely the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs at the time of execution of the sale deed. According to the petitioner, the time stipulated in the agreement for sale deed was three years from the date of agreement.
9. Since before the sale deed could be executed, the said Kothandapani died on 21.02.1995 intestate leaving behind his mother V. Kuppammal a legal notice dated 09.09.1997 was issued to V. Kuppammal, in her capacity as the sole surviving class I legal heir of her late son Kothandapani.
10. Since the mother of late Kothandapani i.e. V. Kuppammal did not come forward to execute the sale deed despite the above legal notice, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 328 of 1997 before the Principle Sub Court, Pondicherry against the said V. Kuppammal and 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents herein who had allegedly signed the aforesaid agreement for sale of the land during the lifetime of late Kothandapani.
11. Meanwhile, The 5th respondent as the sole legal heir of the 1st defendant had sold the suit schedule properties to Tmt. Tirupurasundari wife of P.R. Ramamurthy and her son Thiru. Angudass on 30.07.1998.
12. These two persons in turn sold the property to the 1st respondent on 04.12.2003 and 08.12.2003. The 1st respondent had subsequently put up the construction on the suit schedule property unaware of the above suit.
13. Mean while, since, the 5th defendant also remained absent. The suit was therefore decreed ex parte on 17.07.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 185 of 2006 for execution of the ex parte decree.
14. The petitioner deposited the balance amount of sale consideration pursuant to which the 5th defendant filed I.A. No. 1160 of 2006 for payment out. I.A. No. 1160 of 2006 was allowed on 22.12.2006. On 19.04.2007, a sale deed was executed by the Court in favour of the petitioner.
15. Under these circumstances, the 1st respondent approached P.R. Ramamurthy who facilitated the sale to him in 2003. The said P.R. Ramamurthy, who is the husband and father of his vendors is said to have informed the 1st respondent that his relative, the petitioner herein had obtained a decree in the suit for specific performance in respect of the suit schedule properties measuring 1680 sq. ft. at 465, Mahatma Gandhi Road Pondicherry on 17.07.2006 and asked the 1st respondent to vacate
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
