ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by a senior citizen who is now aged about 70 years. She has been in litigation since 1994 to have the property registered in her name.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 06.07.2018 issued by the second respondent in this writ petition. By the impugned communication, the petitioner has been informed that the said property has been attached in respect of arrears of tax due to the Income Tax Department and therefore the petitioner should obtain a certificate to the effect that there are no tax due in respect of the aforesaid property from the first respondent Income Tax Department.

3. Though the writ petition was originally filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned communication dated 27.03.2017 of the first respondent, later the prayer was amended for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in the impugned communication dated 06.07.2018 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to release the registered sale deed dated 29.6.2018 vide registered document No.86/2018 to the petitioner.

4. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner had entered into a sale agreement with the mother of the third and fourth respondents late Mrs.J.Padmini wife of late .Mr.D.Jayaraman during her lifetime on 30.06.1994. The third and fourth respondents were minors at the time of execution of sale agreement.

5. The said property is a house property. It was originally belonged to the said third and fourth respondents' father’s family. Late Mrs.J.Padmini the mother of the third and fourth respondents along with the third and fourth respondents became subsequent owners of the said property.

6. At the time of execution of the aforesaid sale agreement dated on 30.06.1994, the sale consideration for the property was fixed at Rs.16,75,000/-. The petitioner is said to have paid an advance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- to the said late Mrs.J.Padmini at the time of the execution of the sale agreement dated 30.06.1994. After execution of the sale agreement dated 30.06.1994, late Mrs.J.Padmini however refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

7. Since sale deed was not executed by late Mrs.J.Padmini in favour of the Petitioner, despite receipt of advance under the sale agreement dated 30.06.1994, the petitioner filed O.S.No.632 of 2004 before the Additional District Court and Sessions Court, Coimbatore for specific relief to direct the said late Mrs.J.Padmini to execute a sale deed in her favour after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,55,000/-.

8. During the pendency of the above suit, third and fourth respondents' mother Mrs.J.Padminidied died. Thus, the third and fourth respondents were impleaded in the aforesaid suit who had by them attained majority.

9. The suit was however dismissed by the said Court by its judgment and decree dated 18.05.2005 in O.S.No.632 of 2004. Against the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2005, the petitioner herein filed A.S.No.773 of 2005 before this Court.

10. A.S.No.773 of 2005 was partly allowed by this Court by its order dated 24.03.2010. This Court directed the third and the fourth respondents herein to refund the advance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- paid by the petitioner to late MrsJ.Padmini at the time of execution of the aforesaid sale agreement.

11. The petitioner therefore filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.26881 of 2010. After admission, the said SLP was renumbered as C.A.No.4827 of 2017. By an order dated 31.03.2017 the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

12. The petitioner thereafter filed E.P.No.22 of 2017 before the Additional District Court and the Sessions Court, Coimbatore to execute the sale deed. On 07.08.2017, the petitioner also paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,55,000/- t