M.Venkatachalam v. The Sub Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 04.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR M.Venkatachalam . . Petitioner Vs 1.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Darapuram Thiruppur District 2.M.Ramasamy . . Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to check slip dated 16.02.2021 and quash the same and to direct him to register the General Power of Attorney dated 07.12.2020 executed by the petitioner regarding vacant land ad measuring 6.39 acre comprised in Survey No.602, 6.00 acres comprised in Survey No.603 and 4.02 acre comprised in Survey No.601/B including 1/2 share in the well situated in Ponnapuram village, Darapuram Taluk, Darapuram Sub Registry, Thiruppur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sesubalanraja Page No:1/5
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, AGP for R1 Mr.S.Diwakar for R2
O R D E R
Challenge has been made to the refusal slip issued by the first respondent when the petitioner presented a document for sale of properties. The petitioner originally purchased the property on 27.09.2001 from the second respondent. The sale deed contained classes for re-conveyance. It is agreed between the parties that the property shall be at the option of the second respondent to be reconveyed within three years i.e. on or before 25.09.2004. However, it appears that such option has not been exercised by the second respondent. Thereafter, it appears that the second respondent has executed two settlement deeds in favour of his daughters in the year 2006. At this stage, in the year 2020 the petitioner has executed a power of attorney in favour of one C.Subramaniam to sell his property and when the same was presented before the first respondent for registration, the same was refused to be registered mainly on the ground that two settlement deeds have already been executed in respect of the same property.
2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the form of Page No:2/5
typed set of papers.
3. At the outset, I am of the view that refusal slip cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Once the option to re-purchase the property as stipulated in the document, has not been exercised, the title over the property in respect of the transferee will be absolute. The parties have consistently agreed to exercise such right on or before 25.09.2004. When the second respondent had failed to exercise such an option, in law, now he cannot contend that still he retains a right over the property and execute settlement deeds. Any subsequent document in favour of the children will not convey any right on them, since the transfer in favour of the petitioner has become absolute in view of second respondent's failure to exercise option to re-purchase the property. When such being the position, now the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the document in respect of the property in question and hence the order of the first respondent refusing to register the document is liable to be set aside. .
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the respondent dated 16.02.2021 refusing to register the General Power of Attorney dated 07.12.2020 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to register the document if the the petitioner presents the same within a period of Page No:3/5
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 04.06.2024 Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order Asr To 1.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Darapuram Thiruppur District 2.The Government Pleader High Court, Madras N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Asr Page No:4/5
04.06.2024 Page No:5/5