2-4.Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner presented the document before the 2nd respondent on 11.01.2016. But, by the impugned order dated 29.01.2016, the 2nd respondent unfortunately without even calling for any records to be produced by the petitioner, straightaway ordered to refuse to register the document, stating that the petitioner has no right to sell the property. The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is totally vitiated for nonapplication of mind. On the basis of two entries in the Encumbrance Certificate viz., in respect of Doc.No.1543/2011 and in respect of Doc.No.1614/2006, the 2nd respondent has refused to register the subject document, stating that already the property was sold viz., entire 40 cents had already been sold and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any property therein. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ought to have seen that in respect of Doc.No.1614/2006, 20 cents in the survey number was in respect of the share of the said Ramu Gounder, whose sons have sold the same to one Seenuvasan. In respect of remaining 21 ½ cents (Item No.2 in the suit schedule properties), the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.503/2007 for partition. In the said suit, preliminary decree was passed on 03.02.2009. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings, the the petitioner's father Murthy along with others, surreptitiously had sold the property to one Ganesh Babu on 06.07.2011. Admittedly, the sale deed dated 06.07.2011 has been executed, only after preliminary decree was passed and after the final decree proceedings had started, in which Advocate Commissioner had also submitted his report. Therefore, the said sale which is said to have taken place on 06.07.2011 cannot be a valid sale. As on date, the petitioner is the owner of the subject property and patta also stands in her name. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief as stated supra.
