Petitioner's sale deed was refused registration on grounds of an attachment later vacated, and an appeal against refusal was rejected as time-barred. Vendors conceded no attachment subsisted and agreed to execute the deed. Court directed re-presentation within two weeks and registration within a week without objection on limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.13852 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.13852 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.15014 & 15015 of 2024
G.Dhanalakshmi
...Petitioner
Versus
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.402/B1/2024, dated 10.04.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to register the sale deed dated 04.09.2020 in favour of the petitioner name as compulsory registration.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________Page No. 1 of 6
____________Page No. 1 of 6
W.P.No.13852 of 2024
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R2 Mr.L.Ramanathan for R3 to R5
ORDER
The writ petition is filed for the following relief:
Praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.402/B1/2024, dated 10.04.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to register the sale deed dated 04.09.2020 in favour of the petitioner name as compulsory registration.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that she had purchased the property, subject matter of the writ petition, from respondents 3 to 5 under a sale deed dated 04.09.2024. When the sale deed was presented before the 2nd respondent for registration, the same was returned with the refusal check slip on 14.09.2020 stating that an attachment order had been passed in a suit in O.S.No.40 of 2019 filed by one Venkatesh and therefore, the document could not be registered. The petitioner had made a search in encumbrance certificate where this sale was not reflected. Therefore, she had once again presented the sale deed for registration. It was once again returned for the very same reason.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________
Page No. 2 of 6
W.P.No.13852 of 2024
Thereafter, the petitioner made an enquiry in the Court where she was informed that the attachment order had been vacated on 19.10.2023 itself and she re-presented the sale deed with the order. However, once again the same was returned with the very same endorsement. She further filed an appeal to the 1st respondent for compulsory registration. The 1st respondent conducted an enquiry and in the hearing, the respondents 3 to 5 stated that they were not interested in selling the land to the petitioner and admitted that all the original documents were handed over to the petitioner and rejected the appeal on the ground that the sale deed which was presented on 30.11.2023, was presented beyond the period of 4 months from the date signed by the vendor and purchaser. The 1st respondent has not taken into consideration, the fact that the document was being returned and re-presented. Therefore, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
3.The respondents 3 to 5 had entered appearance through counsel and the counsel would squarely admit that there was no attachment to the property and further the respondents 3 to 5 are ready to execute the sale deed as the parties have settled their disputes. Therefore, taking note of the above submission, there appears to be no impediment to the registration of the document. Therefore, the petitioner shall re-present the document within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________
Page No. 3 of 6
W.P.No.13852 of 2024
period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents shall register the same within a week, thereafter, without contending that the document is filed beyond time, taking note of the pendency of the proceedings before this Court as also the earlier returned refusal check slips issued by the 2nd respondent.
08.11.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation :Yes/No
vsn
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________Page No. 4 of 6
____________Page No. 4 of 6
W.P.No.13852 of 2024
2.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Vazhappadi, Salem District.
P.T. ASHA
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________Page No. 5 of 6
____________Page No. 5 of 6
W.P.No.13852 of 2024
W.P.No.13852 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.15014 & 15015 of 2024
08.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 6 of 6_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a sale deed repeatedly returned for registration on the basis of an attachment since vacated could be directed to be registered despite presentation beyond four months.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Dhanalakshmi
The District Registrar (Administration), Full Additional Incharge, Salem East Registration Department, Salem
The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Vazhappadi, Salem District
Vijaya
Sugavaneswari
Amsarani
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
