Vasanthaa kumari govind Vs The Commissioner

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the name transfer effected in the property tax records in favour of the 4th respondent’s school in respect of the petitioners property situated at Door No.9/28 (3/32), 6th Street, Vinohbha Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai, comprised in R.S.No.3859 (Part) Zone 04, Ward 38 and to take necessary action against the officials responsible for the

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 4767 of 2026

¶18

forgery, after duly considering her representation dated 02/12/2025.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Sridhar For Respondent(s): Mr.A.C.Mani Bharathi for R1 to R3. Mr.Anish Gopi for R4

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the transfer of the property tax records in favour of the fourth respondent’s school in respect of the petitioner’s property bearing Door No.9/28 (Old No.3/32), 6th Street, Vinobha Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai, comprised in R.S. No.3859 (Part), Zone IV, Ward 38, and to take appropriate action against the officials responsible for the alleged fraudulent transfer, after considering the petitioner’s representation dated 02.12.2025.

¶22

The fourth respondent claims that the petitioner had executed an agreement of sale in its favour in respect of the property. Based on the said agreement, the fourth respondent has filed a suit for specific performance in the year 2019, which is still pending. It is the case of the fourth respondent that the property tax records were transferred to its name on the strength of the said agreement of sale.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

¶24

the materials placed on record.

¶25

The agreement of sale relied upon by the fourth respondent is an

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 4767 of 2026

¶29

unregistered document executed in the year 2005. An agreement of sale, by itself, does not create or transfer any right, title or interest in the immovable property. The mere pendency of a suit for specific performance also does not confer any proprietary right upon the fourth respondent unless a decree is passed in its favour. Therefore, the transfer of the property tax records in favour of the fourth respondent solely on the basis of an unregistered agreement of sale is arbitrary and contrary to law.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to cancel the transfer of the property tax records made in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of the property in question within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

22-07-2026

¶32

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

¶33