P M ELAVARASAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved over the withholding of the sale deed presented by the petitioner on 17.4.2013 for registration, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to release the said sale deed forthwith.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he entered into a sale deed dated 17.04.2013 in respect of a property in T.S.No. 19 (O.S.No. 158/1 part) measuring 3830 sq.ft. situated at Block No.6, Saligramam, Chennai with one Mr. S.N. Padmanaban on one part and with 1. Kalaiarasan 2. Gunasekaran 3. Surya 4. Rajeswari 5. Sivasangari 6. Jayanthi 7. Jaiganesh 8. Karthick and 9. Thenmozhi represented by their Power of Attorney Agent, Mr. R. Dineshbabu on the second part. The total sale consideration for the transaction was Rs.1,25,00,000/ - to be paid by the petitioner by way of a demand draft and also by cash to the vendors. The sale deed had a guideline value of Rs.1,72,35,000/ - and stamps were paid for Rs.12,06,450/ - and a sum of Rs.1,72,350/ - was paid towards registration fee and the document was presented before the third respondent herein for registration, which was assigned with registration number, i.e. 2558 of 2013 on the very same day.

(3.) WHILE so, after a month, the third respondent issued a pending number to the said document, without assigning any reasons and did not return the sale deed after registering the same. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a letter, dated 22.5.2013 stating that a release deed in Document No. 7020 of 2011 dated 01.12.2011 given by Dhanaselvi and other in favour of vendor of the petitioner, namely, S.N. Padmanaban, was a forged document and thereby, the second respondent by proceedings, dated 10.10.2012 held that the sale deeds executed in Document Nos. 742 and 750 of 2012 pursuant to the said forged release deed, are not valid in law. The second respondent relied on the orders passed by the first respondent, dated 03.11.2011, which according to the petitioner, were stayed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 26019 to 26021 of 2012 even before the second respondent passed by the above said orders.