Disposed¶47

Mrs.Hemalatha Ranganathan, v. the Chairman and Managing

Madras HC16 Apr 2025WP/19631/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No.19631 of 2012, Madras High Court, disposed 16.04.2025; writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash Indian Bank sale certificate dated 14.06.2012 (Doc. No.4525/2012, Sub-Registrar Saidapet) not granted; Article 226 jurisdiction declined owing to disputed questions of fact; Government Surveyor survey 11.3.2025 and sketch 13.3.2025; common passage obstruction undertaking by respondent 4's counsel; petitioner advised to file suit; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Since disputed questions of fact are involved, the court is unable to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ¶43

Mrs.Hemalatha Ranganathan, Vs the Chairman and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. No.19631 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶8

WP No.19631 of 2012

¶9

Hemalatha Ranganathan, Rep. by Power of Attorney, Ranga Subramanian Agent, No.7, Old No.3, M.G.Ramachandran Road, Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90.

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The Chairman And Managing Director Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai.

¶13

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Circle Office, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶14

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, ARM Branch, 4th Floor, Liberty Plaza, Himayal Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 029.

¶15

___________ Page 1 of 6_

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. No.19631 of 2012

¶18

Padmavathy, W/o.R.Vadivelu, Old No.5, New No.7, Ganesh Nagar, Anna Nagar, Cuddalore.

¶19

The Sub Registrar, District Registrar Office, Saidapet, Chennai-15. (R5-impleaded as per order dated 2/8/2013)

¶20

Respondent(s)

¶21

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the sale certificate dated 14.06.2012 registered as document No.4525/2012 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Saidapet, pertaining to the property bearing survey No.161/2&3, 140, Thiruvanmiyur Village, Old Door No.7, New Door No.3, M.G.R.Road, Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090 measuring 1204 Sq.ft.+1/2 804 Sq.ft. rear 1606 Sq.ft. along with building ground floor 709 Sq.ft. and 1st floor, 335 sq.ft. and quash the same as null and void and consequentially direct the Sub Registrar, Saidapet to cancel the sale certificate dated 14.06.2012 registered as document No.4525/2012 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Saidapet, pertaining to the property bearing Survey No.161/2&3, 140 Thiruvanmiyur Village, Old Door No.7, New No.3, MGR Road, Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090 “measuring 1204 sq.ft + 804 sq.ft. along with building ground floor 709 sq.ft. and 1^st floor 335 sq.ft.

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P. No.19631 of 2012

¶25

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Arokia Satheesh for Mr.S.Sethuraman

¶26

For Respondent(s): Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.B.Rajeswari for M/s.Aiyar and Doliar for R1 to R3

¶27

Mr.V.Ragavachari, Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Gururaj for R4

¶28

Mr.Habeeb Rahman, Government Advocate for R5

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶31

Pursuant to the order dated 19.2.2025, the Government Surveyor,

¶32

admittedly, surveyed the property on 11.3.2025 and a report has also been prepared.

¶33

Petitioner has certain objections to the report, particularly with

¶34

regard to the common passage on the eastern side of the property.

¶35

Shri Sathish submitted that on the upper floor admeasuring 400

¶36

sq.ft. an illegal construction has been made by fourth respondent, which

¶37

Page 3 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P. No.19631 of 2012

¶40

Shri Raghavachari, appearing for fourth respondent, naturally denies.

¶41

Shri Raghavachari states that first floor was always there when the property was sold by the bank to his client and if at all petitioner feels that fourth respondent has got more than what was mortgaged, certainly that grievance can be raised by borrower and not petitioner. In any event, we agree with Shri Raghavachari that disputed questions of fact are involved.

¶42

Shri Raghavachari, in fairness, also states that, if there are any obstructions in the common passage, those obstructions will be removed within two weeks from today and the passage as per the measurement given in the sketch by the Government Surveyor on 13.3.2025 will be maintained free from obstructions.

¶43

In these circumstances, since disputed questions of fact are involved, we are unable to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open to petitioner to file a suit or take such action as advised in accordance with law to assert her rights.

¶44

___________ Page 4 of 6_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P. No.19631 of 2012

¶47

Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to

¶48

costs.

¶49

(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.) 16.04.2025 Index : Yes/No (1/3) Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi