Disposed

J.Abdul Rahim, v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC24 Nov 2016WP(MD)/21497/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of four writ petitions challenging the delay in registering sale deeds pending before the Sub Registrar. The court directed the Respondent to pass an order regarding the registration of documents within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to pass suitable orders regarding registration of documents 35, 36, 37, and 38/2016 within six weeks.

J.Abdul Rahim, Vs the Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.11.2016

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.21497 to 21500 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.16250 and 16251 of 2016

¶5

J.ABDUL RAHIM ..Petitioner in W.P.21497/16 M.MOHAMEED NAINA ..Petitioner in W.P.21498/16 KH KHALEEL AHMED ..Petitioner in W.P.21499/16 S.MOHAMMED NAKUDA MARAIKAYAR ..Petitioner in W.P.21500/16

¶6

Vs.

¶7

THE SUB REGISTRAR O/O. SUB REGISTRAR

¶8

ALANKULAM, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. ... Respondents in all W.Ps

¶9

Prayer in all W.Ps: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to register and release the sale deed dated 08.07.2016 presented for registration on the file of the respondent on 17.10.2016 and pending as Document Nos. 37, 35, 36 and 38/2016.

¶10

In all W.Ps

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.T.Akalya for Mr.A.Mohamed Hussain For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj Govt. Advocate

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

These writ petitions have been filed directing the respondent to register and release the sale deed dated 08.07.2016 presented for registration on the file of the respondent on 17.10.2016 and pending as Document Nos. 37, 35, 36 and 38/2016 respectively.

¶14

2.According to the petitioners, they have purchased certain extent of properties in Kurutchikulam Village, Tirunelveli District. Subsequently, the petitioners presented the sale deeds before the respondent on 17.10.2016 and the Respondent is keeping the documents pending in pending Document Nos. 37, 35, 36 and 38 of 2016. Sofar, he has not registered the document. When the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners approached the respondent, he is not giving proper reason. Hence, they have filed the present writ petitions.

¶15

¶16

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that since the sale deed has been executed by the power agent and the power deed has been executed in the SubRegistrar's Office, Tiruvarur, for the purpose of verifying the genuineness of the above power of attorney deed, the sale deed is kept pending. After verification, sale deed presented by the petitioners will be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

¶17

4.In the above circumstances, the respondent is directed to pass suitable orders with regard to registration of documents on the pending Document Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 38 of 2016, submitted by the petitioners, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

5.Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

¶20

ASST REGISTRAR ( AS )

¶21

TRUE COPY

¶22

SUB ASST REGISTRAR CS 3

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE SUB REGISTRAR O/O. SUB REGISTRAR

¶26

ALANKULAM, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶27

1CC TO MR. A. MOHAMAD HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE SR: 72650 1CC TO THE SPL, GOVT PLEADER SR: 72699

¶28

AM SK SKN SAR 3 25 11 2016

¶29

W.P(MD)Nos.21497 to 21500 of 2016 24.11.2016 2P 4C

¶30

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

J.Abdul Rahim, v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Abdul Rahim, v. the Sub Registrar

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

P.Thangavel Vs the Tahsildar

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamilnadu

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Shanmuga Sundaram Pillai Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

B.Sarath Kumar, Vs the Principal Secertary

S.M.Malliga, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer