Disposed

S.Cruzmary v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC27 Feb 2023WP/5608/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking cancellation of a sale agreement. The petitioner had submitted a representation on 06.01.2023. After hearing counsel, the direct petition was disposed of, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to issue notice to parties and decide the representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission dispensed with notice to second respondent; first respondent directed to issue notice to both parties and decide petitioner's representation within six weeks.

S.Cruzmary Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.5608 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :27.02.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.5608 of 2023

¶7

S.Cruzmary ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The Sub-Registrar, O/o. Purasavakkam Sub-Registrar, Joint Office Opposite, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

¶10

Shahul Hameed ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to cancel the sale agreement in Document No.6001 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 before the Purasavakkam Sub-Registrar, Ayanavaram, Chennai in the name of Purchaser J.Shahulhameed with in the stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sathyamurthi

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan [Specail Government Pleader R1]

¶14

ORDER

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/4

¶17

Writ Petition No.5608 of 2023

¶18

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ mandamus directing the

¶19

first respondent herein to cancel the sale agreement in Document No.6001 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 before the Purasavakkam SubRegistrar, Ayanavaram, Chennai in the name of Purchaser J.Shahulhameed within the stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶20

In order to cancel the sale agreement entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent, the petitioner has given a representation to the first respondent on 06.01.2023 and in order to consider the same, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

¶21

Heard Mr.R.Sathyamurthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.

¶22

In view of the order going to be passed in this writ petition,

¶23

notice to the second respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶24

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/4

¶27

Writ Petition No.5608 of 2023

¶28

respondent would submit that the representation given by the petitioner

¶29

dated 06.01.2023 would be considered and decided on merits of-course after giving notice to both the petitioner as well as the second respondent within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶30

Considering the said submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, this Court directs the first respondent to issue notice to both the petitioner and the second respondent and after hearing them, the needful action may be taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 06.01.2023 within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶32

27.02.2023

¶33

Index : Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mp

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/4

¶36

Writ Petition No.5608 of 2023

¶37

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶38

¶39

¶40

The Sub-Registrar, O/o. Purasavakkam Sub-Registrar, Joint Office Opposite, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

¶41

Writ Petition No.5608 of 2023

¶42

27.02.2023

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

4/4

S.Cruzmary v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Cruzmary 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.John Selvaraj Vs The Managing Director

Rahmath Beevi Vs The Special Deputy Collector

K.Radhakrishnan Vs The District Registrar

Sathiyamoorthy Vs The Sub Registrar

Sekar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

A.R.K.Varatharajan Vs The State rep by