Disposed

K.Boopalan v. the Inspector Generl of Registration

Madras HC13 Jun 2024WP/11249/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel registration authorities to cancel a sale agreement registered in 2019. The court held that an entry in an encumbrance certificate merely shows the nature of the transaction and does not bar the owner from dealing with the property; thus, the petition to cancel the agreement was not maintained.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. No direction is issued to cancel the sale agreement or the encumbrance entry.

K.Boopalan Vs the Inspector Generl of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.11249 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.11249 of 2024

K.Boopalan

... Petitioner

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Mylapore Chennai

¶11

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Vellore Zone

¶12

Vellore

¶13

3.The District Registrar Cheyyaru Thiruvannamalai District

¶14

Tamil Nadu

¶15

4.The Registrar Vembakkam Register Office Thiruvannamalai District

¶16

5.S.Saravanakumar

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

_______ Page 1/7_

¶20

W.P. No.11249 of 2024

¶21

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the sale agreement in Document No.347/2019, Vembakkam SRO, Thiruvannamalai District dated 01.03.2019.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Manikandan

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.P.Anandhakumar Govt. Advocate for R1 to R4 R5 - Court notice returned

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1

¶26

to 4 to cancel the sale agreement registered as Document No.347 of 2019 on

¶27

the file Vembakkam SRO, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶28

It is the case of the writ petitioner that he has entered into a sale

¶29

agreement with one Boopalan for sale of his properties and the agreement was registered on 01.03.2019. An advance sale consideration of Rs.50.00 Lakhs has

¶30

been received by the writ petitioner. During the existence of the said agreement, the agreement holder was arrested by the police in connection with

¶31

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

¶32

Page 2/7

¶33

W.P. No.11249 of 2024

¶34

an alleged crime under Section 409, 420 r/w 34 IPC. The sale agreement was also seized by the Investigating Agency and produced before the concerned court. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a criminal revision case before this court in Crl. R.C. No.146 of 2022 wherein this court has disposed of the criminal revision case holding that there cannot be any hindrance entering into any transaction in respect of the property and observed that the offence registered against the agreement holder is not connected to the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has also pursuant to the order of this court, has deposited Rs.50.00 Lakhs advanced to him by the fifth respondent before the learned CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and also received the document. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the sale agreement entry is reflected in the encumbrance certificate.

¶35

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶36

At the outset, this court is of the view that a mere entry relating to the

¶37

sale agreement will not be a bar for the petitioner to deal with his property. The entry is retained in the encumbrance certificate only to show the nature of transaction. Therefore, the mere entry reflected in the encumbrance certificate

¶38

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

¶39

_______ Page 3/7_

¶40

W.P. No.11249 of 2024

¶41

in respect of the sale agreement will not be a bar for alienating the property or executing any document by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of cancelling the agreement by the registering authority does not arise at all. It is also made clear that a mere entry in the encumbrance certificate relating to the agreement entered in the year 2019 will not be a bar for the petitioner to deal with the property. He can very well deal with his property, in whatsoever manner he likes.

¶42

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶43

13.06.2024

¶44

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Asr To

¶45

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Mylapore Chennai

¶46

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Vellore Zone

¶47

Vellore

¶48

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

¶49

Page 4/7

¶50

W.P. No.11249 of 2024

¶51

3.The District Registrar Cheyyaru Thiruvannamalai District Tamil Nadu

¶52

4.The Registrar Vembakkam Register Office Thiruvannamalai District

¶53

5.The Government Pleader High Court, Madras

¶54

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

¶55

_______ Page 5/7_

¶56

W.P. No.11249 of 2024

¶57

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶58

Asr

¶59

W.P.No.11249 of 2024

¶60

13.06.2024

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _______ Page 6/7_

¶62

W.P. No.11249 of 2024

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _______ Page 7/7_

K.Boopalan v. the Inspector Generl of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Boopalan v. the Inspector Generl of Registration

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

S.Jothimani Vs the Joint Commissioner

G.Kalaiyarasan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Veronica Gerard Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Dbtr National Higher Secondary School Vs Thiru.G.Arivoli and 2 others

S.Amirthalingam Vs Dr.Alby Johan Varghese and another

Aginesh Ammual Vs the District Collector