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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1663

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
Wipro Limited, Rep. by its Senior Manager, Facilities Management Group & Authorised Signatory M.S. Shrinath, Bengaluru – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 26012 of 2022 & W.M.P. No. 25099 of 2022
Decided On : 19-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel, M/s. Gupta & Ravi, Advocates. For Respondent:R1 & R2, Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader, R3, P.V. Balasubramanian, M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh, Advocates, R4, B. Dhanaraj, Advocate.

An agreement to sell will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in the immovable property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the decision in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Ltd. v. State of Haryana.

Headnote:

Transfer of Property Act - Sale Agreement - Section 54 - Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that the title in an immovable property valued at more than Rs.100/- can be conveyed only by executing a registered Deed of Conveyance and that a Contract for Sale of an immovable property will not by itself create any interest or charge on such property. The court referred to the decision in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Ltd., through Director V. State of Haryana and another reported in 2012 (1) SCC 656, which held that an agreement to sell will not qualify to the requirements of Sections 54 & 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such, it will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in the immovable property.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the deletion of an encumbrance over a commercial property due to the appointment of Official Liquidator as a Provisional Liquidator of M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited, prohibiting transfer of their properties, pending C.P.No.73 of 2000.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the encumbrance created over the subject property is not legally sustainable and issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to delete the remarks prohibiting the transfer of the property.

Issues: The main issue was the legality of the encumbrance created over the subject property due to the appointment of Official Liquidator as a Provisional Liquidator of M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the decision in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Ltd. v. State of Haryana to establish that the encumbrance was not legally sustainable.

Final Decision: A Writ of Mandamus was issued, directing the respondents to delete the encumbrance remarks in the office of the second respondent in respect of the immovable property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to delete the following Note “Hon''ble High Court of Madras has appointed Official Liquidator attached to Hon''ble High Court as Provisional Liquidator of M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited. Hence Transfer of this Property is Prohibited Pending CP.No.73 of 2000” in Book 1 in the office of the second respondent in respect of the immovable property bearing T.S. No.6, Block No.7 of Adyar Village, Saidapet Taluk bearing Door No.105, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032, with land measuring 24 grounds and 288 square feet (or about 5379 square metres) along with a building thereon measuring about 1,64,378 sq. feet of built-up area and a basement measuring about 31,700 square feet.)

1. The Commercial property bearing Door No.105, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034 originally belonged to one Mr.Farrokh J. Irani and Mac Property Development Limited. The third respondent herein had purchased this subject property from them through a registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.1995. Prior to selling of the subject property to the petitioner, the third respondent had entered into a sale agreement with M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Ltd., on 25.03.1996 for selling 50% of the subject property to them. However, the sale agreement did not materialise and conclude into a sale deed. In this background, the petitioner had purchased the subject property through a Sale Deed dated 03.01.2007, in which M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited joined as a Confirming Party. The recitals of the petitioner''s Sale Deed states that the Sale Agreement dated 25.03.1996 with M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited was rescinded and that M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited has no interest in the subject property.

1.2. By an order dated 11.12.2014 passed by this Court in C.P.No.73 of 2000, M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited was wound up. Through a circular dated 26.05.2016, the first respondent had informed all the Deputy Inspector Generals, District Registrars and Sub Registrars about the order dated 11.12.2014 passed in C.P.No.73 of 2000 and directed them not to register any sale deed in respect of M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited. Consequently, an encumbrance was created over the subject property belonging to the petitioner about the appointment of Official Liquidator as a Provisional Liquidator of M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited, prohibiting transfer of their properties, pending C.P.No.73 of 2000. The petitioner now seeks for deletion of this encumbrance.

2. Heard Mr.P.S. Raman, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2, as well as Mr.P.V. Balasubramanian and Mr.B.Dhanaraj, learned counsel for the third and fourth respondent respectively.

3. At the outset, it requires to be mentioned that the second respondent herein had totally misconceived the circular of the first respondent dated 26.05.2016. As per the said circular, the Sub Registrars were instructed to refrain from entertaining registration of documents which purport to alienate / transfer the immovable properties of the “M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited” to third parties, without the consent of the Hon''ble Madras High Court. Apparently, the circular would be binding only on such properties belonging to M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited. Apart from entering into a sale agreement with the third respondent herein, M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited had absolutely no nexus or right over the subject properties. It is a well established principles of law that an agreement to sell will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in the immovable property.

4. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, provides that the title in an immovable property, valued at more than Rs.100/-, can

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