Dismissed

E.Raja, S/O. Elumalai, v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC10 Nov 2020WP/437/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking an enquiry into whether buyers paid the sale consideration under a Sale Deed. The Court held that the deed admitted the receipt of funds, making the petitioner's contrary claim inadmissible, and that the issue required evidence-based trial, not a writ. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed. No costs awarded.

E.Raja, S/O. Elumalai, Vs The Inspector General of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.11.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.437 of 2017

E.Raja ...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 28.

¶9

2.The District Registrar, Salem West Registration District, Salem.

¶10

3.The Salem West Joint – 1 Sub Registrar, Salem West, Salem. 4.R.Veerappan 5.Meenakshi ...Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to conduct due enquiry on the respondents 4 & 5 with respect of the issue regarding whether the respondents 4 & 5 were paid consideration amount for executing the Sale Deed dated 17.11.2016 on the file of the 3^rd respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.Revathy for M/s.R.Nalliyappan For Respondents : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman,

¶13

Government Advocate (R1 to R3)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to conduct enquiry on the respondents 4 & 5 with respect to the issue regarding whether the respondents 4 & 5 have paid the sale consideration amount for executing the Sale Deed dated 17.11.2016 on the file of the 3^rd respondent.

¶16

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

¶17

2.On a perusal of the Sale Deed dated 17.11.2016, which is annexed in the typed set of papers, it could be seen that the petitioner himself had admitted that he received the entire Sale Consideration of Rs.30 lakhs from the respondents 4 & 5. The said Sale Deed was presented for registration before the 3^rd respondent, however, the same has not yet been registered for want of proper Stamp Duty. When the petitioner had admitted that he had received the entire Sale Consideration, he cannot set up a new case in the Writ Petition stating that he has not received the Sale Consideration. That apart, the issue involved in the Writ Petition is a matter for evidence, which cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶18

3.In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
// True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 28.
2.The District Registrar,
Salem West Registration District,
Salem.
3.The Salem West Joint – 1 Sub Registrar,
Salem West, Salem.
+1cc to Government Pleader, SR.No.36752
W.P.No.437 of 2017
SVI(CO)
KKV/11/12/2020

¶20

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

E.Raja, S/O. Elumalai, v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Raja, S/O. Elumalai, v. The 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

P.Sasikala Vs The Chairman

M.Krishnan Vs The District Collector

S.Meena Vs The Executive Engineer

N.K.Subramaniam, Vs the Sub Collector

Tmt.R. Ranjani Vs the District Revenue Officer

S.Kanagaraj, Vs The Thasildar