IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11 / 04 / 2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

WP NO.9295 OF 2010

1.Dr.S.Rangarajan

2.Rukmani Santhanam

3.Thomas Rajan

4.Sujatha Thomas

both residing at No.901, Silver Cascade,

Mt.Mary Road, Bandra,

Mumbai - 400 050.

Both represented by their Power of Attorney

Agent K.Ravi

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority

and Inspector General of Registration

Tamil Nadu

No.100, Santhome High Road,

Santhome, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The Sub-Registrar

Periamet

1103, Poonamallee High Road,

Periamet, Chennai - 600 003.

...

Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the

proceedings of the first respondent in the order

D.Dis.No.15636/P1/2009 dated 08.02.2010 confirming the order

No.I 2/08 dated 29.01.2009 of the second respondent and quash

the same and consequently direct the respondents to register and

release the Deed of Rectification dated 10.11.2008 assigned

pending registration No.50 of 2008 in the Office of the second

respondent to the petitioners without levying any further stamp

duty, registration fee or penalty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.J.George

For Respondents:

Mr.M.Rajendran

Additional Government Pleader

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

The first petitioner Dr.S.Rangarajan purchased the

property in R.S.No.143/61, Block No.11, Egmore Village,

Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai, by virtue of two registered

Documents of Sale, bearing Registration Nos.1092 and 1094 of

1971 dated 26.03.1971.

2.The second petitioner Rukmani Santhanam got the

property in R.S.No.143/60, Block No.11, Egmore Village,

Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai, by virtue of a Settlement Deed

bearing Document No.66/2006 dated 12.01.2006.

3.Thus, it is clear that Dr.S.Rangarajan is the owner

of the property situate in R.S.No.143/61 and Rukmani Santhanam

is the owner of the property situate in R.S.No.143/60. The

derivation of title was by two different modes. In the case of

Dr.S.Rangarajan, the conveyance of the property was by

registered Deed of Sale. In the case of Rukmani Santhanam she

got the property through a registered Deed of Settlement. The

first transaction of sale by the first petitioner was on

26.03.1971 and the second transaction viz., Deed of Settlement

was on 12.01.2006. Both these transactions do not have any

connection.

4.It is pertinent to note that both of them have given

Power of Attorney to one Mehul H. Doshi. The said Power of

Attorney entered into a Developers Agreement with both the first

and second petitioner.

5.The third and fourth petitioners are the intended

purchasers of the Flats developed by the Power of Attorney Mehul

H. Doshi. The said Power of Attorney is supposed to convey

2555/7600 UDS in S.No.143/61. In other words, he must have

conveyed the UDS from the property owned by Dr.S.Rangarajan in

S.No.143/61. Whereas, by a registered Deed of Sale bearing

No.24/2008 dated 04.01.2008, sold 2555/7600 UDS in S.No.143/60.

This means, he sold the property of Rukmani Santhanam instead of

selling the property of Dr.S.Rangarajan.

6.Now that, the third and fourth petitioners have to

get a conveyance of 2555/7600 UDS in R.S.No.143/61. This, they

want to achieve by registering a Rectification Deed. This

2555/7600 UDS in S.No.143/61 is sought to be rectified by

substituting the property which was already conveyed in

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.S.No.143/60. The original owner Dr.S.Rangarajan was described

as a "Vendor" in the Rectification Deed and the owner of the

property in S.No.143/60 which has already been conveyed was

described as a "Confirming