A prior sale transaction cannot be invalidated by subsequent injunctions as long as the title was acquired before the injunction was issued.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Challenge in the Writ Petition was to the order of the Authorities refusing to register the sale deed dated 07.02.2022 executed by the petitioner alienating an extent of undivided share of 343 Sq.ft., out of 2 grounds and 287 Sq.ft. in Survey No.107, R.S.No.107/1A1A part of Koyambedu Village, which was purchased by her under a sale deed dated 24.08.2015 from the two individuals who happened to be the Directors of the 5th respondent.

2. The petitioner purchased the undivided share as stated supra and entered into a construction agreement with M/s.Jayaswathy Construction Pvt. Ltd., registered on 24.08.2015. The said construction agreement was registered as Document No.3674 of 2015 and an apartment measuring an extent of about 786 Sq.ft. was constructed there on. The sale deed executed by the petitioner on 07.02.2022 was presented for registration before the 1st respondent namely, Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar. He refused to register the instrument on the ground that the 4th respondent herein had obtained an order of injunction restraining the owners from alienating the property in an arbitration proceeding and therefore, the document cannot be registered. Though the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar refers to the date of communication addressed by the 4^th respondent, it is silent as to the date on which the injunction order was granted. The statutory appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed. The petitioner moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that Section 22-B empowers the Registrar to refuse registration in the event there is a prohibition on alienation.

3. Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Namasivayam for the 4^th respondent. The 5th respondent has not been served. We do not find any necessity to hear the 5th respondent, since the 5th respondent is a debtor and it has no say in the proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced the proceedings of the Arbitrator which show that an order of injunction was granted under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the sole Arbitrator on 07.05.2019. The proceedings of the Arbitrator also refer to an agreement dated 28.09.2017. Therefore, it is clear that the Arbitration is pursuant to the agreement entered into on 28.09.2017, which is almost two years after the alienation of the property by the owners there of, who are cited as respondents 3 & 4 before the Arbitrator.

5. When the parties before the Arbitrator have lost their title to the property even in the year 2015, an order of injunction cannot have any effect. Unfortunately, the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar namely, the original Authority and the appellate Authority have deliberately chosen to overlook the above facts and while the original Authority refused registration, the Appellate Authority chose to affirm the said order.

6. We do not find any reference to the date of attachment or the enforceability of the attachment against the property which has already been sold under the order of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has gone only by the endorsement made by the Officials of the registration department.

7. The facts that have been placed before us very clearly demonstrate that the very agreement for arbitration was entered into in the year September, 2017 i.e., two years after the sale of the property. Therefore, it is very clear that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the Authorities functioning under the Registration Act. I