G.Kannan v. The Inspector General Of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH G.Kannan S/o.Ganesan, Door No. 362E, Nanjampatti, Ammapettai, Salem 636003.

Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector General Of Registration The Inspector General Of Registration Office, Chennai.

2.The District Registrar (Administration) Combined Registration Office Complex, Salem.

3.The Joint Sub-registrar No.1 Salem (east) Combined Registration Office Complex, Salem.

Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 1/4

India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to delete the entries of two expired and limitation barred sale agreements vide Doc. No.2698 of 2000 and No.2660 of 2001 from the Encumbrance Certificate with respect of the petitioners property comprised in T.S. No. 61, Block No. 19, Ward AL, Salem Town, Salem to an extent of 1050 1/2 sq.feet based on the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2025 For Petitioner :

Mr.L.Ramanathan For Respondents :

Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act upon the representation made by the petitioner on 20.03.2025, wherein, the petitioner is seeking for cancellation / deletion of the entries that were made when sale agreements were registered as Document Nos.2698 of 2000 and 2660 of 2001, touching upon the subject property.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. In the considered view of this Court, the respondents are not vested with any power to delete entries made in the Encumbrance 2/4

Register. Even according to the petitioner, the sale agreements were registered in the years 2000 and 2001 and thereafter, it was never acted upon. Thus, the sale agreements have become stale and unenforceable according to the petitioner.

4. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in N.Ramayee Vs. Sub-Registrar, Registration Department, Salem District and another reported in 2020 (6) CTC 697 has dealt with this issue and it has been made clear that mere registration of sale agreement will not stop the owner of the property to deal with the property. Thus, if the sale agreements which have been registered as Document Nos.2698 of 2000 & 2660 of 2001 have become time barred and unenforceable, it will not stand in the way of the petitioner from dealing with the property and it cannot be put against the petitioner. This observation will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the petitioner. This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

28.04.2025 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order mk 3/4

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J mk To

1. The Inspector General Of Registration The Inspector General Of Registration Office, Chennai.

2.The District Registrar (Administration) Combined Registration Office Complex, Salem.

3.The Joint Sub-registrar No.1 Salem (east) Combined Registration Office Complex, Salem.

28.04.2025 4/4