Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI
Kumar .N – Appellant
Versus
The Branch Manager – Respondent
Rectification - Property Dispute - Act Section List - The court addressed the negligence of a financial corporation in executing a sale deed with a typographical error, interpreting the obligation to rectify such errors under property law, and directed the corporation to complete the registration of the rectification deed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner of a property, discovered a wrong survey number entry made by the first respondent in a deed during his attempt to sell the property. After official communication, the first respondent failed to rectify this mistake for years, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent accepted their mistake but had not acted promptly to correct it. The court emphasized the need for timely rectification and directed the first respondent to complete the registration of the rectification deed.
Issues: Whether the first respondent acted negligently in failing to rectify the erroneous property deed despite acknowledging the mistake.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the financial corporation's negligence in addressing a known typographical error justified the imposition of costs on them and necessitated prompt action to rectify the administrative error.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to complete the registration of the rectification deed within one week and pay litigation costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Door No.
526/2-72A comprised in S.No.259/5 to an extent of 3.5 cents in Thirukoshtiyur Village, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. According to the petitioner, this property originally belonged to his father (Late) Narayanan S/o.Karuppiah Pillai, from whom, the property devolved on him. Patta was issued as gramanatham in the name of the petitioner's father on 25.10.1993 in Patta No.172 and all other revenue records stand in their name.
2.The case of the petitioner is that when he intended to sell the property in the year 2021, they came to know that a wrong entry has been made in respect of the property by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the first respondent enclosing the documents that the property belongs to his father and they are in enjoyment of the same.
3.In response to the petitioner's representation, the first respondent, through their Counsel, has sent a reply on 05.04.2021 as under:-
“My client further states that it is a typographical error committed in the sale deed, dated 20.02.2009, ie., S.No.259/5 is wrongly shown instead of 259/25, which had been correctly pointed out by your client. But as far as the extent of land and other aspect is concerned, it is correctly shown in the sale deed. So, it is false to state by your clients that the Corporation with others had created a false and fabricated documents. My client being a Government State Financial Corporation does not indulge in such activities as stated by your client and no necessity arise for the Corporation to do so. Hence, my client is not liable to pay any cost as claimed by your clients.
My client states that on receipt of your notice, Corporation had taken necessary steps to rectify the defects committed at the time of registering the Sale deed. If the defect is identified at the earliest, the same would be rectified at the earliest. Only on receipt of your notice the defect came to light. The Corporation is taking earnest steps in rectifying the defects in the sale deed and the same will be let you know the progress done by Corporation then and there. So kindly bear the inconvenience. After rectifying the defects a copy of the same will be produced for your satisfaction.
Therefore, you advice your client that the Corporation is taking necessary steps to rectify the defects by registering the Rectification Deed for the sale deed dated 20.02.2009 bearing Registration No. 348/2009 and the process will be completed after getting necessary approval from the appropriate authority at the earliest. If your client thinks to initiate any action against the Corporation, my client is ready to face any action initiated by your client.”
4.Even thereafter, the first respondent has not rectified their mistake by filing necessary rectification deed and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition for a mandamus directing the first respondent to execute the rectification deed by rectifying the wrong survey number in the Doc.No.348 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tiruppathur, Karaikudi and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner and their family members.
5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the negligence of the first respondent, the petitioner has suffered a lot from the year 2021. The petitioner was not in a position to sell his property from the year 2021. Even though the first respondent admitted that they have committed a mistake, they have not come forward to rectify the mistake for the past three years.
6.The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit as follows:-
6.1.At the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the second respondent on 20.02.2009 in Doc.No.348/2009, the survey number has been inadvertently shown as S.No.259/5 instead of 259/25. The said defect was brought to the notice of the first respondent by the petitioner on 31.03
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
