An earlier registered sale agreement does not prevent the owner from subsequent property transactions.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Sale Agreement dated

14.09.2004 registered as Document No.2463 of 2004.

2.Heard Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthick Jagannath, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

3.The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of a registered Settlement Deed dated 24.02.2012 registered as Document No.577 of 2012. The Settlement Deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by her husband who had purchased this property through a registered Sale Deed dated 27.08.2010 registered as Document No.2652 of 2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent who has absolutely no right over the property seems to have entered into an agreement of sale in the year 2004 and the said Sale Agreement was also registered on the file of the 1st respondent as Document No.2463 of 2004. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court and has sought for the cancellation of the Sale agreement.

4.In the considered view of this Court, it is not necessary to cancel the Sale Agreement of the year 2004 at this length of time. The mere execution of a Sale Agreement does not in any way stop the actual owner of the property from dealing with the property. The law on this issue was discussed in detail in N.Ramayee vs. Sub Registrar, Registration Department and Another reported in 2020 6 CTC 697 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

46. Accordingly, we answer the reference as follows:

If an agreement for sale is registered in respect of immovable property, the same will not be a bar for the owner of the property to effect subsequent transfers in respect of the same property. The Registrar has no right to refuse to register the document, except the documents relating to immovable properties mentioned in Section 22-A of the Tamil Nadu Act and as contemplated under Rule 162 of the Registration Rules.

47. It is also brought to our notice about the new circular in No. 24011/C1/2020 dated 08.10.2020. It is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Registrar has power to regulate the registration in order to prevent fraud and hence, the Registrar is having powers under the Registration Act to regulate the registration and the right to refuse the document and that such power is available under Section 71 of the . Such contention is not acceptable for the simple reason that the circular bars transfer of property on the ground that when a lease is already executed in respect of the property, without expiry of the lease, transfer cannot be permitted or without consent of lessee no registration is permissible. Further, insisting a no objection from mortgagee before registration is also against the very substantive provision of law. If any property is sold with existing mortgage, the transferee steps into the shoes of mortgagor. He has the right to redeem the property by paying the mortgage money. Therefore in the name of regulating the registration, any circular which is in the nature of violating the substantive provision of law, which deals with the transfer of property, then such circular cannot stand in the eye of law. If the contention of learned Advocate General that without seeking declaration and cancellation of the agreement of sale, subsequent agreement or transaction cannot be registered, is accepted then such restriction, in fact, infringes the very Constitutional right of the citizen provided under Article

300 A of the Constitution.

5.The apprehension of the petitione