Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, J
Sankarakumar – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Panpozhi Sub Registration Office, Panpozhi, Tenkasi District – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' land purchase history and registration refusal under section 22a(2). (Para 2) |
| 2. counsel arguments on property rights versus planned development. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. text and scope of section 22a(2) for ownership transfers. (Para 5 , 7 , 13) |
| 4. constitutional property rights under article 300a. (Para 6 , 14) |
| 5. distinction between planning and non-planning areas. (Para 8) |
| 6. registering officer limited to document description. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 7. registration mandate with affidavit safeguards. (Para 12 , 15 , 17) |
ORDER
Heard Shri.N.Dilipkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri.Veera Kathiravan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent.
2.The first petitioner herein purchased the petition mentioned lands comprised in S.No.33/3, Theinpothai Village, Shenkottai Taluk, Tenkasi District vide sale deed dated 18.03.2020 from one E.Karuppasamy. It was registered as Doc No.568/2020 on the file of the Panpozhi SRO. His vendor Karuppasamy, in turn, had purchased the same through two registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.129 and 331 of 2019. The first petitioner wants to dispose of the said property. Hence, he executed a power of
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
