The execution of a sale deed in favor of one heir does not extinguish the ownership rights of other legal heirs; they retain equitable interest in the property.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is on appeal, aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court wherein, the Writ Court held that the release deed executed by the mother, brother and sisters of the 1st respondent should not be treated as a sale, since the siblings of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent have an interest in the property though the sale deed stands in the name of the mother.

2. The brief facts are as follows:-

(i) One T.Venkatesan, father of the 1st respondent had acquired an extent of about 1378 Sq.ft., of land in a slum area known as M.G.R. Nagar in Chennai. The said area was developed with the aid of the World Bank and an allotment was made to the said Venkatesan in the year 1985. The land that was in occupation of Venkatesan was numbered as Plot No.143. Subsequently, before the execution of the sale deed, said Venkatesan had died on 11.04.2005, leaving behind his wife and three children. The wife applied to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (now known as Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board) / 2nd respondent herein seeking transfer of the allotment. An order came to be passed on 09.09.2008 transferring the allotment in her name.

(ii) Subsequently, a sale deed came to be executed by the Slum Clearance Board in favour of the wife of Venkatesan / mother of the 1st respondent on 13.10.2008. Since the allotment was transferred in the name of the wife of Venkatesan, sale deed was also executed in her name. However, the parties treated the property as jointly owned by them and executed the release deed in question. The Registering Authority went by the recitals in the sale deed and concluded that wife of Venkatesan is the absolute owner and her children do not have any right over the property therefore, the release should be treated as a sale. Aggrieved by the said conclusion of the Registering Authority, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.No.12589 of 2014.

3. The learned single Judge concluded that in view of the fact that the original allotment was in favour of Venkatesan, the fact that the re-allotment made in 2008 will not vest the property absolutely in his wife. The learned single Judge found that the children of Venkatesan will also have a right after death of Venkatesan, since Venkatesan had died intestate. On the said conclusion, the learned single Judge found that the treatment of the release deed as sale deed by the Registering Authority is unsustainable. Therefore, the Writ Petition was allowed. Hence, this appeal.

4. We have heard Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.G.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

5. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that since the sale deeds stands in the name of the wife of Venkatesan, she should be presumed to be the absolute owner. Neither original order nor the re-allotment order were placed before the Registering Authority. The Registering Authority came to the conclusion based on the recitals in the sale deed executed by the Slum Clearance Board in favour of the wife of Venkatesan. This issue is not res- integra. This Court had on several occasions considered the effect of such sale deeds executed by the Slum Clearance Board in the name of one of the heirs of the original allottee. The same question came up for consideration in Vijayalakshmi Vs. Pushparani , 2011 (6) MLJ 642 wherein this Court held that the fact that the Slum Clearance Board had not executed a sale deed would not prevent the heirs from seeking partition of the property, since they have a possessory right o