Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M.Roseline vs The Inspector General Of on 25 June, 2021

Author: V.Bharathidasan

Bench: V.Bharathidasan

                                                                       W.P.No.13252 of 2021

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 25.06.2021

                                                        CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

                                                W.P.No.13252 of 2021

                  M.Roseline,
                  W/o. L.Stephen                                          ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.
                  1. The Inspector General of
                      Registration,
                     Office of th I.G. Registrations,
                     Santhome, Chennai.

                  2. The District Registrar,
                     O/o. District Registrar,
                     Saidapet, Chennai.

                  3. The Sub-Registrar,
                     SRO's office,
                     Tambaram.

                  4. M.Shakunthala,
                     W/o. Mummoorthy

                  5. G.Bhuvaneswari,
                     W/o. M.Gopu

                  6. Mumoorthy Avenue Welfare
                       Association,
                     rep. By is President
                     Mr.Ganesh Prakash                                 .. Respondents


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                  1/5
                                                                                  W.P.No.13252 of 2021

                  Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

                  for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 3

                  to conduct an enquiry under Sections 81 to 83 of the Registration Act, 1908

                  in respect of the registration of the Gift deed dated 17.01.1989 under

                  Document No.127/1989 on the file of 3rd respondent based on the petitioner's

                  representation dated 26.03.2021.

                                    For Petitioner    :        Mr.S.Valarmathi
                                    For Respondents       :    Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan,
                                                               Government Advocate R1 to R3

                                                              -----

                                                          ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference) The Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry under Sections 81 to 83 of Registration Act in respect of Gift deed executed by 6th respondent in favour of St. Thomas Mount Panchayat.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, one Sreekanda Chettiyar is the owner of property and he said to have executed a Will in favour of one Radhakrishnan bequeathing the entire extent of property in his favour. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/5 W.P.No.13252 of 2021 Thereafter, the said Radhakrishnan has given a power of attorney to one Shanthi and she sold the property to various persons, the petitioner said to be one of the purchasers. Subsequently, when the petitioner taking steps to dig a borewell, the respondents 4 to 6 prevented them saying that they have purchased the above house site. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that, in the year 1989, the property was developed by somebody and a layout was also approved. Thereafter, the promoter has also executed a Gift deed in respect of a public pathway and other common areas to St. Thomas Mount Panchayat on 17.01.1989. After coming to know about the same, the petitioner has made a representation on 26.03.2021 to the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the respondents 4 and 5 under Section 81 to 83 of Registration Act. So far, that representation was not considered and no action has been taken on it. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Admittedly, the property was developed in the year 1989 and a layout was also approved by competent authorities. While getting approval of the layout, the promoter said to have executed a mandatory Gift deed in favour of St. Thomas Mount Panchayat in respect of a common areas reserved for public purpose. Now, after lapse of more than 30 years, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/5 W.P.No.13252 of 2021 petitioner said to have filed an application to conduct enquiry on the above Gift deed, under Section 81 to 83 of the Registration Act. The layout was approved in the year 1989 and only thereafter, the petitioner has purchased the property in the year 2007 from a third party. If at all, any title dispute between the parties, it could only be resolved by a civil court, and the petitioner cannot approach the respondents seeking to take action under Sections 81 to 83 of Registration Act. I find no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is only liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

25.06.2021 rpp To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Office of th I.G. Registrations, Santhome, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar, O/o. District Registrar, Saidapet, Chennai.

3. The Sub-Registrar, SRO's office, Tambaram.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/5 W.P.No.13252 of 2021 V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.

rpp W.P.No.13252 of 2021 25.06.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/5