K.Boopalan v. The Inspector Generl Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P.No.11249 of 2024 K.Boopalan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Mylapore Chennai 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Vellore Zone Vellore 3.The District Registrar Cheyyaru Thiruvannamalai District Tamil Nadu 4.The Registrar Vembakkam Register Office Thiruvannamalai District 5.S.Saravanakumar ... Respondents Page 1/7
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the sale agreement in Document No.347/2019, Vembakkam SRO, Thiruvannamalai District dated 01.03.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Manikandan For Respondents : Mr.P.Anandhakumar Govt. Advocate for R1 to R4 R5 - Court notice returned
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the sale agreement registered as Document No.347 of 2019 on the file Vembakkam SRO, Thiruvannamalai District.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he has entered into a sale agreement with one Boopalan for sale of his properties and the agreement was registered on 01.03.2019. An advance sale consideration of Rs.50.00 Lakhs has been received by the writ petitioner. During the existence of the said agreement, the agreement holder was arrested by the police in connection with Page 2/7
an alleged crime under Section 409, 420 r/w 34 IPC. The sale agreement was also seized by the Investigating Agency and produced before the concerned court. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a criminal revision case before this court in Crl. R.C. No.146 of 2022 wherein this court has disposed of the criminal revision case holding that there cannot be any hindrance entering into any transaction in respect of the property and observed that the offence registered against the agreement holder is not connected to the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has also pursuant to the order of this court, has deposited Rs.50.00 Lakhs advanced to him by the fifth respondent before the learned CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and also received the document. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the sale agreement entry is reflected in the encumbrance certificate.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
4. At the outset, this court is of the view that a mere entry relating to the sale agreement will not be a bar for the petitioner to deal with his property. The entry is retained in the encumbrance certificate only to show the nature of transaction. Therefore, the mere entry reflected in the encumbrance certificate Page 3/7
in respect of the sale agreement will not be a bar for alienating the property or executing any document by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of cancelling the agreement by the registering authority does not arise at all. It is also made clear that a mere entry in the encumbrance certificate relating to the agreement entered in the year 2019 will not be a bar for the petitioner to deal with the property. He can very well deal with his property, in whatsoever manner he likes.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 13.06.2024 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No : Yes / No Asr To 1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Mylapore Chennai 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Vellore Zone Vellore Page 4/7
3.The District Registrar Cheyyaru Thiruvannamalai District Tamil Nadu 4.The Registrar Vembakkam Register Office Thiruvannamalai District 5.The Government Pleader High Court, Madras Page 5/7
N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.
Asr W.P.No.11249 of 2024 13.06.2024 Page 6/7
Page 7/7