Fraudulent sale deeds executed without consideration are null and void, and legal heirs of the original allottee are entitled to property rights.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

We have heard Mr.T.Dharani, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.AM.Ravindranath Jeyapal, learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board/R1 and R2 and Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate for R3 and R4. In light of the order that is proposed to be passed now in this Writ Appeal, no notice is thought necessary to R5 and R6 who are Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.15016 of 2021. The parties are referred to as per their rank and array in this appeal.

2. There is some history to this matter. One Rajendran had been allotted a property at MIG 3504 in the sanctioned plan, Ganapathy Phase III, S.F.No.41 (part), Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore ad measuring 180 sq.m. ('property'/'subject property') under an allotment order dated 23.11.1992 issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. He passed away on 21.09.2023.

3. While so, the authorities of TNHB had executed a Deed of sale dated 02.02.2009 registered as document No.687 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Registrar of Registration, Ganapathy, Coimbatore District relating to the subject property in favour of the appellant. W.P.No.10251 of 2014 thus came to be filed by R5 and R6 praying for a mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to cancel sale deed dated 02.02.2009 relating to the subject property. There was a consequential prayer seeking a direction to the Executive Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to execute a sale deed in favour of R5 and R6 after receiving the sale consideration as per allotment order dated 23.11.1992 issued in favour of K.Rajendran.

4. To be noted that R5 and R6 are the widow and daughter of deceased Rajendran and the present appellant was arrayed as R4 in that Writ Petition. By order dated 10.03.2015 that Writ Petition came to be disposed simplicitor, directing the authorities to consider the representations given by R5 and R6 by issuing notice to them as well as to the appellant and pass orders.

5. Those proceedings culminated in favour of R5 and R6 as, after enquiry, the officials of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board passed an order on 08.07.2015 stating that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant was liable to be cancelled. That order came to be challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.22760 of 2015, wherein R5 and R6 were arrayed as R4 and R5.

6. By way of a detailed order dated 02.11.2022, the Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition categorically attributing fraud upon both the appellant as well as the officials of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. There is a clear finding to the effect that an allotment was made in favour of the deceased Rajendran, who had paid the initial deposits as well as the instalments thereafter, regularly. The learned Judge finds that no material was available on record to establish that the appellant had made any payments at all towards the subject allotment.

7. The relevant discussion is at paragraphs 7 to 9 which are extracted below:

7. Admittedly, it is not disputed by the first respondent that the subject property has been originally allotted to one K.Rajendran, lease cum sale agreement has been executed and the plot has been handed over to the said Rajendran on 26.02.1994 and he was required to pay the monthly instalments. After his death, it appears that out right sale has been executed in favour of the petitioner claiming to be wife of the said Rajendran. Thereafter, on coming to know about the above sale deed, the fourth and the fifth respondents have filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.10251 of 2014 and this Court by an Order dated directed the first respondent to conduct enquiry by issuing notice to the petitioner and the fourth and fifth respondents and after enquiry, the first respondents had passed the impugned Order holding that the allotment has been made in favour of K.Rajendran and he had paid the initial deposit and the instalments regularly. But, no document, whatsoever, has been filed to show that consideration of Rs.2,15,000/~ has been paid by the petitioner.

8. Wh