LATIF ESTATE LINE INDIA LTD Vs. HADEEJA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed against the order passed in W.P. Nos. 17555 of 2008 and 27291 of 2008.

(2.) In W.P. No. 17555 of 2008, the facts of the case are that the writ Petitioner (Respondents 2 and 3) claims to be the owner of Plot No. 223, measuring 2500 sq.ft. comprised in survey Nos. 98/5, 98/2A/2 and 98/2B/3, Kakkalur Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District. The said property allegedly purchased by the writ Petitioner by means of registered sale deed dated 13th Nov., 1996, from the 2nd Respondent/Appellant. She claims that the entire sale consideration was paid and she was also put in possession. However, the 2nd Respondent/Appellant unilaterally executed the cancellation deed on 27th Aug., 2007, which was registered by the 1st Respondent, being Document No. 16826/07. The 2nd Respondent/Appellant denied the allegation and stated that the writ Petitioner was not in possession of the property and the Appellant continued to be in possession of the same. It was also contended that the sale consideration was not paid. Learned single Judge, following the judgment and order rendered in W.P. No. 8567/08 held as under:

(3.) Similarly, W.A. No. 592 of 2009 arose out of the order passed in W.P. No. 27291 of 2008. The facts of the case are that the writ Petitioner/Respondent claimed to be the owner of Plot No. 24 measuring 3010 sq. ft. of Survey No. 132/1B1 and 131/A present survey No. 132/1A1 of Thirumullaivoyal Saidapet Taluk, Chengai MGR District, which was purchased by means of registered sale deed, dated 13th Dec., 1997, from the 3rd Respondent/Appellant. She claimed that the entire sale consideration was paid and she was put in possession of the same. However, the 3rd Respondent/Appellant unilaterally executed a cancellation deed on 29th Aug., 2007 and the same was registered by the 2nd Respondent as Document No. 10079/07. The writ Petitioner, therefore, sought quashing of the said cancellation deed. The case of the Respondent/Appellant was that the writ Petitioner was never put in possession of the property after the execution of the sale deed. Rather, because of the non-payment of consideration, the Appellant executed the cancellation deed nullifying the earlier sale deed. Learned single Judge, following the decision in W.P. No. 8567/08 came to the same conclusion as noted above in W.A. No. 938/09. The judgment and order has been challenged by the Appellant on the same grounds as made out in the aforesaid appeal, W.A. No. 938/09.