IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.09.2021 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P. No.22329 of 2017 Vaithilingam ... Petitioner -Vs-

1. The District Registrar (Administration)

Virudhachalam.

2. The Sub Registrar, Ulundurpet, Villupuram.

3. Vijayakumar

4. Babu ... Respondents Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2334/A1/2015 dated 03.10.2016 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the second respondent to cancel the registration No.3815/2011 dated 22.02.2011.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan Government Advocate.

R3 : Not Ready in notice R4 : Notice served.

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2334/A1/2015 dated 03.10.2016 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the second respondent to cancel the registration No.3815/2011 dated 22.02.2011.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject properties were purchased by him by the two registered sale deeds vide document No.2116/2006 dated 14.12.2006 and document No.588/2007 dated 04.04.2007 from the third respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue records also mutated in favour of the petitioner. While being so, the third respondent with an intention to have the subject properties created an agreement for sale in the name of the fourth respondent herein, in respect of the very same property dated 07.08.2006. On the strength of the agreement for sale, the fourth respondent filed suit in O.S.No.128 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Villupuram and conveniently, the third respondent did not appear before the trial Court and he was set exparte. The trial Court granted exparte decree by the judgment decree dated 19.12.2008.

3. On the strength of the exparte decree, the sale deed was executed in favour of the fourth respondent herein on 22.02.2011 registered vide document No.3815/2011. Thereafter, the petitioner came to under stand about the sale deed executed in favour of the four respondent in respect of the very same property and lodged compliant before the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram and the same was registered in Crime No.17 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 423, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120(b) of IPC as against the respondents 3 & 4 herein. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram laid final report for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 423, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120(b) of IPC as against the respondents 3 & 4, before of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, and it is pending for trial.

4. In the mean time, the petitioner also filed an application before the first respondent to annull the sale deed which was executed in favour of the fourth respondent herein. Though the first respondent considered all the grounds raised by the petitioner, refused to annull the document and directed the petitioner to approach the concerned Court for appropriate relief. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the agreement for sale itself subsequent to the sale as such, the agreement for sale itself is not valid. The alleged agreement was created in the 20 rupees stamp paper stood in the name of one Ramesh, Nellikuppam, and the same was corrected in the name of the fourth respondent and fabricated the agreement for sale. It is only evidence from the information received under the Right To Information Act, on 05.04.2013 from the Sub Registrar, Uluthoorpet.

5.1. He further submitted that on the complaint, now the Inspector of Polic