Disposed

M. Thangaraj, v. Inspector General of

Madras HC8 Feb 2013WP(MD)/13039/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a check slip issued by the Sub Registrar rejecting a sale deed registration. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's interest under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act but held that the registration authority cannot be quashed when the PoA was already cancelled prior to presentation. The petitioner was directed to file a representat

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation under Section 202 to the Sub Registrar. No quashing of check slip.

M. Thangaraj, Vs Inspector General of — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 08.02.2013

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

WP(MD) No.13039 of 2011

¶6

M.Thangaraj .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs -

¶8

1.Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhome, Chennai – 20.

¶9

2.Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Andipatti Taluk,Theni District.

¶10

3.Theni Periyandavar Textiles and Sri Gayathri Cotton Mills Private Limited, rep.by its Managing Director,

¶11

M.Kannan

¶12

4.Palaniyandi .. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned check slip bearing No.172/2011 dated 20.09.2011 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to receive the sale deed dated 08.09.2011 executed by the writ petitioner in favour of the 4^th respondent in respect of S.No.270/1A, Shanmugasundarapuram Village, Andipatty Taluk, Theni District.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For RR – 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Ananthraj Govt. Advocate For R – 3 : Mr.Venkatesh Kumar for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the check slip dated 20.09.2011 issued by the second respondent in Check Slip No.172 of 2011 and also for directing the second respondent to receive the sale deed dated 08.09.2011 executed by the petitioner in favour of the 4^th respondent with regard to Survey No.270/1A, Shanmugasundarapuram Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is averred in the petition that the third respondent is the owner of the property bearing Survey No.270/1A and he executed a sale agreement dated 19.12.2008 in favour of the petitioner and

¶18

¶19

subsequently he has executed a power of attorney deed dated 09.01.2009 in favour of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has been authorised to deal with the properties belonging to third respondent. In pursuance of the power of attorney deed dated 09.01.2009 the petitioner has executed the sale deed in question on 08.09.2011 in favour of the 4^th respondent and the same has been presented for getting registration from the file of the 2^nd respondent. But the 2^nd respondent has issued a check slip No.172 of 2011, wherein it has been stated that the power itself has been cancelled prior to presentation of the sale deed dated 08.09.2011. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for in the petition.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that since the 3^rd respondent has executed a sale agreement in favour of the petitioner and in pursuance of the same the petitioner has spent lot of money so as to discharge the debts incurred by the 3^rd respondent, as per section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the petitioner is having interest in the property mentioned in the sale deed in question and therefore the power of attorney deed has not been revoked without any express concerned from the petitioner and the second respondent without considering the provision under section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 has erroneously issued the check slip in question and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶21

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent has contended that if at all the petitioner is having grievance he can work out his remedy by way of filing proper proceedings and the second respondent has acted in accordance with law and therefore, the act of the 2^nd respondent cannot be challenged in the present Writ Petition. Under the said circumstances the present Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has also equally contended that the second respondent has not done any infraction and since the power of attorney itself has been cancelled prior to presentation of the sale deed in question, the second respondent has rightly issued the check slip in question and therefore, the act of the second respondent cannot be vitiated by way of filing the present Writ Petition and altogether the present Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

It is seen from the records that the third respondent has executed a sale agreement in favour of the petitioner on 19.12.2008, wherein the property mentioned in the sale deed in question is found place. Likewise, the third respondent has executed a power of attorney deed dated 09.01.2009 in favour of the petitioner.

¶24

It is seen from the check slip issued by the second respondent that the power of attorney deed dated 09.01.2009 has been cancelled even prior to presentation of the sale deed in question. Since the sale deed in question has been executed by the petitioner as power of attorney agent of the third respondent and since at the time https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of presenting the sale deed in question for registration, power of attorney given in favour of the first petitioner has been cancelled,

¶25

¶26

this Court is of the considered view that the second respondent has not done infraction in issuing the check slip in question.

¶27

As per provision of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act,

¶28

1872, it is easily discernible that if any person has acquired an interest and subsequently an agency has been created, the same cannot be unilaterally cancelled without express concerned of the agent.

¶29

In the instant case, the sale deed in question has been executed by the petitioner as power of attorney agent of the third respondent. But the same has been cancelled even prior to presentation of the sale deed in question for getting registered. Therefore, the Registering Authority viz., the second respondent is bound to act in accordance with the existence of power of attorney deed. But, as pointed out earlier, the power of attorney deed itself has been cancelled prior to presentation of the sale deed in question for getting registered. Therefore, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the check slip issued by the second respondent is liable to be quashed and at the most, the petitioner can be directed to give a representation to the second respondent on the basis of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the second respondent can be directed to consider the same inconsonance with the factual aspects to be mentioned on the side of the petitioner and also on the basis of the said section. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is liable to be disposed of.

¶30

In fine, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the basis of the observation made earlier. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to give a representation by setting forth all transactions which had happened between the petitioner and third respondent and also by way of relying upon Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The second respondent is directed to look into the same and dispose of it on the basis of merit. The second respondent is also directed to give opportunity to the third respondent.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhome, Chennai – 20.

¶37

2.Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District.

¶38

- 1 CC to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate vide SR.No.6229

¶39

- 1 CC to M/S.Ajmal Associates, vide SR.No.6491

¶40

- 1 CC to the Spl.Government Pleader vide SR.No.6333

¶41

WP(MD)No.13039 of 2011 08.02.2013

¶42

GDR 20.02.2013 3P/6C

¶43

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

M. Thangaraj, v. Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Thangaraj, v. Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajamani, Vs the Secretary to Governement

Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

D.G.A. Kennedy, Vs the Director

Smalin Jenitha Vs Union of India

N. Alphonse Fernando, Vs the Commissioner

R.K. Uma, Vs the District Collector