← Library
Madras High CourtWP/16246/2017dismissed

D.Sugumar v. The Registrar

2017-07-03Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.07.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No.16246 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.17586 & 17587 of 2017 D.Sugumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Registrar Office of the Joint Registrar of Co operative Housing Society, 3/315 Devi Chit Fund Complex, Near Raja Kalyana Mandapam, Salem Region, Salem-636 004.

2. Dr.Ambedkar City Co operative House Building Society Limited, Represented by its Secretary,S.1523, 9, Pal Pillai Street, Fort, Salem- 636 001. ... Respondents PRAYER : The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the first respondent herein namely the Registrar, Cooperative Housing Society, Salem Region, Salem and quash the demand notice dated 21.04.2017 in E.P.No.587/2016-2017.

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Meenakshi Sundaram For Respondents : Mr.V.Selvaraj, Additional Government Pleader for R1 : Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram, Special Government Pleader for R2

ORDER

According to the petitioner, the petitioner purchased the land situated at Plot No.60, Rajappa Garden, Seelanayakkampatty Village, Dadakappatty, Salem Taluk and District comprised in survey No.73/4, Re-Survey No.73/5 by a sale deed dated 16.07.2012 duly executed by one, M.Indirani and

registered as document No.4480/2012. The second respondent issued a notice dated 01.11.2014 informing that the above property had been mortgaged by one, Nallappan for availing a housing loan for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Then only the petitioner understood that the said property had been sold suppressing the above fact. Immediately, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.910/2010for protecting possession and got an interim injunction. In the above suit, the second respondent has filed a written statement along with related documents wherein the loan availed by the Nallppan has been shown as Rs.2,10,000/- whereas in the demand notice, the same is Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, the petitioner has filed a memo to clarify the same. So far, the second respondent has not furnished the information to the Court. While being so, the first respondent issued the impugned notice dated 21.04.2017 in E.P.No.587/2016-2017. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have not considered that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. Moreover, no notice has been sent to the petitioner till 2014. Without verifying the right, title or possession over the subject property, attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the property is illegal and hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.

3. The learned Additional Government pleader would submit that as the vendor was defaulted in payment of the outstanding amount, an award was passed in the Execution Petition and the petitioner, being the subsequent purchaser, has been issued the said demand notice. The petitioner has no legal right to challenge the demand notice. Since no final order has been passed in the related Execution Proceedings, the petitioner still has an efficacious alternative remedy under Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 to make objection or claim before the competent authority / the Registrar. If any objection is made by the petitioner as such, the same shall be considered in accordance with rules.

4. From the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, being the subsequent purchaser of the property, the petitioner has been issued the demand notice. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.910 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court, Salem and obtained an order of interim injunction against eviction pending the suit. Further, as the final order in the execution proceedings has not been passed and while the petitioner has the right to approach before the competent authority, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be considered and is liable to be dismissed.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the first respondent for making any objection or claim, raising the above grounds.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar lok To

1. The Registrar Office of the Joint Registrar of Co operative Housing Society, 3/315 Devi Chit Fund Complex, Near Raja Kalyana Mandapam, Salem Region, Salem-636 004.

2. The Secretary, Dr.Ambedkar City Co operative House Building Society Limited, S.1523, 9, Pal Pillai Street, Fort, Salem- 636 001.

+1cc to Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram, Advocate, S.R.No.46191 +1cc to M/s.A.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate, S.R.No.46032 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.46564 W.P.No.16246 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.17586 & 17587 of 2017 PPA(CO) CA(25/09/2017)