← Library
Madras High CourtWP/3773/2016disposed of

A.Benjamin Francklin v. The Inspector General

2016-02-02Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.02.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.No.3773 of 2016 1 A.Benjamin Francklin ... Petitioner Vs.

1 The Inspector General Registration Departments Santhome, Chennai- 28.

2 The Sub-Registrar Konnur Sub-Registrar Ambattur, Chennai-53.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent Konnur Sub-Registrar, Chennai to delete the entry pertaining to the Settlement deed dated 20.11.2008 vide Document No.5030 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Konnur.

For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Ashok Kumar For Respondents :

Mr.M.Dig Vijay Pandian Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to delete the entry pertaining to the Settlement deed dated 20.11.2008 vide Document No.5030 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Konnur. 2.

The case of the petitioner is that various properties belonged to the petitioner's father were settled by the petitioner in favour of his wife Episi Pressanna through Document No.5030 of2008 dated 20.11.2008 in Book Volume I of Konnur Sub Registrar Office, Chennai. Subsequently, the Settlement Deed was cancelled by the petitioner through Cancellation Deed Document No.5030 of 2008 dated 11.1.2010 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Book Volume I of the said Registration Office. The entries relating to Settlement Deed and Cancellation Deed are reflecting in Encumbrance Certificate issued by the said Registration Office. Hence, the petitioner made a request to the 2nd respondent to delete the entries in the said Book Volume, but he refused to do so, as it requires a Court order. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents, submits that the Encumbrance Certificate reflects the Deeds executed by the petitioner and therefore, the question of deleting the same from the Encumbrance Certificate does not arise and such a request cannot be considered.

4. I find force in the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader. This Court cannot mechanically give a direction to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ajr To 1 The Inspector General Registration Departments Santhome, Chennai- 28.

2 The Sub-Registrar Konnur Sub-Registrar Ambattur, Chennai-53.

+1 cc to Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, Advocate vide sr.7118 +1 cc to Government Pleader sr.6875 W.P.No.3773 of 2016 aa04/02/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/