Dismissed

Sri Manav Construction and v. Sub Registrar

Madras HC9 Oct 2020WP/220/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandatory order for the Sub-Registrar to complete registration of an agreement of sale dated 16.12.2012. The Court held that since the petitioner had lost title by executing a registered sale deed on 21.12.2012, they were not the owner at the time of presentation, and registration was rightly refused.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus to direct registration of the sale agreement was dismissed.

Sri Manav Construction and Vs Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.10.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.220 of 2016

¶6

Sri Manav Construction and Developers Private Limited,

¶7

Rep. By its Managing Director, Mr. Manish Agarwal, Son of Mr.Srinivasji Agarwal, Muthiah Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

Sub Registrar, Tiruporur, Chennai – 603 110. ... Respondent

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to take all the steps that may be necessary for the completion of the registration of the agreement of sale dated 16.12.2012 presented by the petitioner to the respondent and kept as Pending Document No.55 of 2013 on his file, and complete the same in accordance with law and the procedure within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Raja For Respondent : Mr. B. Kannan Government Advocate

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to take all the steps that may be necessary for the completion of the registration of the agreement of sale dated 16.12.2012 presented by the petitioner to the respondent and kept as Pending Document No.55 of 2013 on his file, and complete the same in accordance with law, within a time frame.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that they have entered into a sale agreement with a Company, by name, M/s. Land Marvel Projects India Private Limited on 16.12.2012. Though the

¶15

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

¶16

sale agreement was mandatorily registrable under the Registration Act, the petitioner choose not to present the document for registration immediately. Subsequently, within a week's time, i.e. on 21.12.2012, the petitioner sold the property, which is the subject matter of the sale agreement dated 16.12.2012, by a sale deed dated 21.12.2012, registered in the office of the respondent as Document No.12923 of 2012 in favour of M/s. Land Marvel Projects India Private Limited. Similarly, M/s. Royal Land Developers Limited also executed a sale deed on the very same day and the said sale deed was also registered as Document No.12922 of 2012 .

¶17

Mr. P. Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner presented the sale agreement for registration on 08.02.2013, however, the respondent kept the document as pending document in Pending Document No.55 of 2013 for the reason that the petitioner had sold the property and executed the registered sale deed on 2112.2012 itself. Further, the learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner had presented the sale agreement dated 16.12.2012 within four months from the date of execution of the document for registration before the respondent, the respondent should have registered the document.

¶18

Mr. B. Kannan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has not registered the document for the reason that the petitioner had lost the title on 21.12.2012 itself.

¶19

When the petitioner had sold the property which is the subject matter of the sale agreement dated 16.12.2012, by a registered sale deed dated 21.12.2012, they cannot be termed as the owner of the property on the date of presentation of the sale agreement for registration i.e. on 08.02.2013. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the property was sold under two registered sale deeds dated 21.12.2012 pursuant to the sale agreement dated 16.12.2012. So far as the recitals mentioned in the sale agreement dated 16.12.2012 are concerned, it is the subject matter of the pending arbitral proceedings and therefore, I am not adverting to the recitals found in the documents. If any finding is given in this Writ Petition with regard to the recitals mentioned in the sale agreement, it would affect the case before the learned Arbitrator.

¶20

Since the petitioner had lost his title on 21.12.2012, the respondent had rightly refused to register the sale agreement dated 16.12.2012 when it was presented for registration on 08.02.2013. In such circumstances, no Mandamus can be issued to the petitioner for registering the sale

¶21

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

¶22

agreement dated 16.12.2012. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶23

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Rj
To
The Sub Registrar,
Tiruporur,
Chennai – 603 110.
+1 CC to Mr.P. Raja, Advocate sr 33690.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 33533.
W.P.No.220 of 2016
PP(CO)
SP(04/11/2020)

¶24

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

Sri Manav Construction and v. Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manav Construction and v. 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

Mahaboob Basha, Niyamathullah, Vs the Chairman

K. Elumalai, Vs The District Collector

P.Lakshmi, Vs The State rep. by

E.Suseela Devi, Vs Corporation of Coimbatore

C.S. Prithviraj Vs The District Collector

P.P.Sundaramoorthy, Vs The Inspector General of