The pendency of a suit does not prevent the registration of a transaction, as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent's refusal notice dated 18.05.2022, under reference RFL/Purasawalkam/37/2022 and to quash the same as illegal and invalid, and to consequently direct the third respondent to register the sale deed as also the construction agreement, both dated 16.05.2022 presented by the petitioner for registration by the petitioner herein on 16.05.2022 in respect of the property bearing Old No.24, New No.48, Nallaiya Naidu Street, Namalwarpet, Chennai – 600 012, comprised in Old Survey No.578 and 590, R.S.No.3185/1 as per patta R.S.No.3185/ 15, Block No.56, C.C.No.7677 and 4917 of Purasawalkam Village, Perambur – Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai District.)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent's refusal notice dated 18.05.2022, under reference RFL/ Purasawalkam/37/2022 and to quash the same as illegal and invalid, and to consequently direct the third respondent to register the sale deed as also the construction agreement, both dated 16.05.2022 presented by the petitioner for registration by the petitioner herein on 16.05.2022 in respect of the property bearing Old No.24, New No.48, Nallaiya Naidu Street, Namalwarpet, Chennai – 600 012, comprised in Old Survey No.578 and 590, R.S.No.3185/1 as per patta R.S.No.3185/ 15, Block No.56, C.C.No.7677 and 4917 of Purasawalkam Village, Perambur – Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s.Signet Foundations and is carrying on business as Building Contractors and Property Developers. The petitioner came to know through some Brokers that the premises bearing New No.48, Old No.24, Nallaiya Naidu Street, Namalwarpet, Chennai – 600 012, measuring an extent of 1 ground and 116 sq.ft. was available for sale. Thereafter the petitioner was introduced to seventh respondent who told him that the property originally belonged to his mother V.Krishnaveni Ammal and she settled the same in favour of his brothers V.Rengan and V.Parthasarathy and thereafter his mother and V.Rengan expired and the property is owned by respondents 5, 6 and 7.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner asked for the relevant documents and sale deed dated 29.03.1966, settlement deed dated 04.04.2004, death certificate of V.Krishnaveni Ammal, legal heirship certificate dated 22.06.2015, death certificate of V.Prasad and death certificate of V.Rengan were furnished to the petitioner. After perusing the aforesaid documents, the petitioner decided to purchase the property and purchased the same from respondents 5, 6 and 7 vide sale deed dated 07.01.2021 registered as Document No.65 of 2021 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam. Thereafter, the petitioner intended to develop the property under the name and style of 'Signet Emerald' and approached the third respondent for registration of the relevant documents, however, the third respondent refused to register the same. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of any restraint order as against the third respondent, the third respondent refusing to register the document presented by the petitioner is non est in law and further submitted that the issue involved in the present case has already been settled by this Court in the decision reported in 2021 (1) CTC 535 [Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal Sangam Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and Others].

5. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that in the absence of any restraint order as against the third respondent, the third respondent refusing to entertain the document presented by the petitioner is not sustainable one.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5, 6 and 7