IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 29.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

W.P.No.6052 of 2017 and

W.M.P.No.6489 of 2017

1.R.Kannan Pillai

2.B.Dhanalakshmi

3.B.Perumal

4.B.Sivakumar

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration,

Puducherry State, Pudhucherry.

2.The District Registrar,

Pudhucherry State,

Pudhucherry.

3.Lebernady Tangaradjou

... Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for

the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent

in D.R.P.No.10 of 2016 dated 04.07.2016 and quash the same as

illegal and incompetent.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.R.Shase

For M/s.M.Guruprasad

For Respondents 1 & 2

:

Mrs.G.Djearany

Government Advocate (Pondy)

For 3rd Respondent

:

Ms.P.V.Rajeswari

ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorari

calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the

second respondent in D.R.P.No.10 of 2016 dated 04.07.2016 and

quash the same.

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

2. The third respondent had purchased the property through

his father at R.S.No.262/26, Survey No.1690 4/6 part, 1690 3/6/1

part at Thattanchavady Revenue Village, Oulgaret Municipality,

Puducherry. The said purchase had been registered as French

Notorial Sale Deed dated 09.11.1964 and was registered at the

concerned Registered Office in R.V.No.220, Folio 393, No.2235

dated 23.01.1964, accordingly, the third respondent had become

the absolute owner of the property.

3. According to the third respondent, after purchasing this

property, he had been in France for several years and after he

returned to Pondicherry, when he verified about the property in

question, it had been occupied by the petitioner and when this

was enquired, he comes to know that the third respondent's

brother one Anthoni Issac with the strength of a Power of

Attorney, said to have been executed by the third respondent,

had executed an unregistered sale deed dated 21.02.1996 by which

the property in question has been bequeathed to and in favour of

one Balakrishnan who, in turn sold the property to the

petitioners vide registered Sale Deed No.3779/1998 dated

03.08.1998.

4. After coming to know all these developments, the third

respondent had made a request to the respondent Registering

Authority to cancel the sale deed dated 03.08.1998 taken place

between Balakrishna Pillai and the petitioners as the same was

pursuant to the alleged unregistered sale deed dated 12.12.1996

taken place between the brother of the third respondent Anthoni

Issac and Balakrishna Pillai.

5. Accepting the said case set up by the third respondent,

the Registering Authority, through its order dated 04.07.2016,

has cancelled the sale deed dated 03.08.1998 on the ground that,

the said deed of sale ought not to have been registered, in view

of the fact that, the vendor of the sale deed claimed to have

purchased the property only based on the sale deed dated

12.12.1996. Therefore, in the eye of law, especially, under

Section 68 and 69 of the Registration Act, that kind of sale

cannot be effected and therefore, that ought not to have been

registered. Accordingly, the Registering Authority had come to

the conclusion that, the registration of the sale deed dated

03.08.1998 in Sale Deed No.3779/1998 can very well be cancelled

accordingly, he has cancelled. In the said order itself, the

Registering Authority had further stated that, insofar as the

possession of the property is concerned, the petitioners had

been in possession and enjoyment of the property as per the

report of the Tahsildar concerned and that has also been taken

into consideration.

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

6. In that view of the matter, after having cancelled the

sale deed concerned, the Registe