← Library
Madras High CourtWP/28163/2015dismissed

Manimekalai v. The Inspector General

2016-07-18Honourable Mr Justice M. Jaichandren4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.07.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.28163 of 2015 Manimekalai .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General, Department of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.

2.The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration, No.50, Sankara Naidu Street, Thirupathiripuliyur, Cuddalore-607 002.

3.The District Registrar, Department of Registration, Gopuram Complex, Kutchery Road, Kallakurichi.

4.The Joint Sub Registrar, Department of Registration, Gopuram Complex, Kutchery Road, Kallakurichi.

5.R.J.Selvanayagam .. Respondents The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 7.8.2015, within the time frame to be fixed by the Court. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondents: Mr.R.Ravichandran, AGP for RR1 to 4 Mr.P.Valliappan for R-5

ORDER

Heard. This writ petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 7.8.2015, within the time limit fixed by this Court.

The petitioner has stated that her father, Pavadai Mudaliar, had owned self acquired properties to an extent of 12 1⁄2 acres of agricultural lands, in Thenkeeranur village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuam District. He had expired on 9.3.2003, leaving behind a registered will, dated 18.2.1998, bequeathing his entire share of the property to his six daughters, after the life time of his wife, Sundarambal. However, the property had been sold, even while the mother of the petitioner, namely Sundarambal, is alive. The fifth respondent had purchased the property from the daughters of the said Pavadai Mudaliar, fraudulently, with the connivance of the fourth respondent. The 4th and 5th respondents had registered a sale deed, on 27.12.

2007, illegally, taking advantage of the fact that the daughters of the said Pavadai Mudaliar are semi literate and as they were not aware of the legal implications of the acts of the 4th and 5th respondents. In such circumstances, the petitioner has submitted representations, dated 7.8.2015, to the respondents 1 to 3, requesting them to conduct a detailed enquiry about the fraudulent nature of the transactions, concluded by the 5th respondent, in respect of the lands, which had belonged to the deceased father of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that, as per the circular issued by the first respondent, dated 3.11.

2011, under the relevant provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the powers are conferred to the District Registrar to annul the registered documents on the grounds of fraud and impersonation. He had also placed reliance on an order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, in Ramasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (4) CTC 627, wherein the constitutionality of the said circular had been held to be valid.

Per contra, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are false and frivolous in nature. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 had submitted that the said respondents are not competent to adjudicate, with regard to the validity of the sale deed executed by the mother and sisters of the petitioner and also by the petitioner. It has been submitted that it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil forum to set aside the sale deed, dated 27.12.2007, if so advised. The representation submitted by the petitioner, on 7.8.2015, cannot be the basis for filing the present writ petition. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the registered sale deed, dated 27.12.2007, executed in favour of the fifth respondent, is null and void. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a detailed enquiry into the fraudulent nature of the

transactions, based on her representations, dated 7.8.2015, cannot be sustained.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the relief prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be granted by this Court. The petitioner had submitted the representation, dated 7.8.2015, to the first respondent, requesting him to conduct a detailed enquiry into the fraudulent transactions said to have been done by the fifth respondent, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 27.12.2007, in respect of the land said to be belonging to Pavadai Mudaliar, the father of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been in a position to show, prima facie, that the registered sale deed, dated 27.12.2007, is fraudulent in nature.

Even otherwise, it is not for this Court to render a finding on disputed questions of factual aspects, relating to the transactions in question. Further, no criminal complaint has been lodged by the petitioner against the parties concerned, alleging that the sale deed, dated 27.12.2007, had been executed and registered in a fraudulent manner. It is also noted that there has been a long and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the representation, dated 7.8.2015, relating to the transactions alleged to have been taken place, on 27.12.2007.

As such, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vvk

To 1.The Inspector General, Department of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.

2.The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration, No.50, Sankara Naidu Street, Thirupathiripuliyur, Cuddalore-607 002.

3.The District Registrar, Department of Registration, Gopuram Complex, Kutchery Road, Kallakurichi.

4.The Joint Sub Registrar, Department of Registration, Gopuram Complex, Kutchery Road, Kallakurichi.

+1cc to Mr.C.Munusamy, Advocate, S.R.No.40491[22/8/16] +1cc to Mr.P. Valliappan, Advocate, S.R.No.40491 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.40652 NRJK(CO) EU(01/08/2016) W.P.No.28163 of 2015