B.Lakshimipathi v. Inspector General Of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR B.Lakshmipathi .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai 600 028 2.The District Registrar No.52, Orikkai Madura Near Anna Kudiyiruppu Kancheepuram District 3.The Joint-II SRO Registration Department Kanchipuram 4.M/s.Color Home Developers Private Limited No.23/19, 7th Street W-Block Anna Nagar Chennai 600 040 5.The Divisional Manager Canara Bank, Regional Office Tambaram, Chengalpattu 600 045 1/6

6.The Branch Manager Canara Bank, Periyakanchipuram Branch 7.M/s.Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (RHDFCL) No.24/16, NN Garden, Old Washermanpet Chennai 600 021 8.Edelweiss Housing Finance Limited (EHFL) 7th Floor, Tower No.117, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017 .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to make a detailed enquiry based on the representations dated 03.11.2020, 12.07.2021, 01.11.2022 made by the petitioner against the 4th respondent acting in collision with the other respondents with respect to the fraudulent mortgage made by the 4th respondent in respect of the property sold to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar For R1 to R3 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader For R4 & R8 : No appearance For R5 & R6 : Mrs.T.Hemalatha For R7 : Mr.V.Balasubramani

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry, based on the representations dated 03.11.2020, 12.07.2021 and 01.11.2022 made by the petitioner against the 4th respondent. 2/6

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

3. According to the petitioner, he purchased a plot on 31.03.2017 from the 4th respondent. During 2018, he came to know that the said property had already been mortgaged by the 4th respondent. However, on the complaint raised by the petitioner, the said property was released from the mortgage in the year 2021. It is the grievance of the petitioner that prior to his purchase on 31.03.2017, two mortgages were already in existence and his representation seeking to conduct enquiry in this regard, has not been considered by the 1st respondent. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. This Court is of the view that mere conduct of enquiry by the registering authority will not serve any purpose in this matter. The doctrine of caveat emptor squarely applies to the buyer. Be that as it may, if the vendor had suppressed and sold the property, the petitioner is not remedyless and he can very well sue the vendor, invoking indemnity clause in the sale deed. In such view of the matter, if the direction sought by the petitioner is granted, it will not serve any purpose.

3/6

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, as against the vendor. Hence, it is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedy, before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

With the above observation, this writ petition stands closed. No costs. 01.07.2024 gya Index : Yes/No 4/6

To 1.The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai 600 028 2.The District Registrar No.52, Orikkai Madura Near Anna Kudiyiruppu Kancheepuram District 3.The Joint-II SRO Registration Department Kanchipuram 4.The Divisional Manager Canara Bank, Regional Office Tambaram, Chengalpattu 600 045 5.The Branch Manager Canara Bank, Periyakanchipuram Branch 5/6

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

gya 01.07.2024 6/6