This order dismisses a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a rejection of a complaint to cancel a Sale Deed.
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.14265 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.14265 of 2024
K.Venkatesan
.. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai 600 028
2.The District Registrar Rangampalayam Erode, Erode District
3.P.R.Thangamuthu
4.P.Venkatachalam
5.R.Shanthi
.. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent dated 26.09.2023 in Na.Ka.No.4096/A2/2023, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry in order to cancel the Sale Deed dated 11.06.2009 in document No.2234/2009 and Mortgage Deed in document No.7357/2022.
1/4
W.P.No.14265 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango For R1 and R2 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
Challenging the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated
26.09.2023, this writ petition has been filed.
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.
the Sale Deed was executed in the year 2009 by the 3rd respondent, the
3rd respondent did not hand over the sale consideration to his mother. The
2/4
W.P.No.14265 of 2024
2nd respondent, vide his impugned proceedings, rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that the recitals in Sale Deed No.2234 of 2009, go to show that the property involved therein was sold by the 3rd respondent only in the capacity of its owner and not in the capacity of being the Power Agent of the petitioner's mother. It is also stated in the impugned proceedings that it is for the petitioner to approach the competent Court seeking appropriate relief. Challenging the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
07.06.2024 gya (2/2) Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
3/4
W.P.No.14265 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
gya
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai 600 028 2.The District Registrar Rangampalayam Erode, Erode District
W.P.No.14265 of 2024
07.06.2024
(2/2)
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Registrar acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash a Sale Deed solely on the ground of unpaid sale consideration.
Whether a complaint of non-payment of consideration after 14 years warrants cancellation of the registered document instead of civil remedy.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Venkatesan
The District Registrar Rangampalayam Erode
R.Shanthi
N.SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
