HATHIJA NACHIAR Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR NAGAPATTINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 19. 1. 1986 executed in favour of the petitioner by Kanagasabai and others and as directed by the first respondent in his proceedings Appeal No. 7 of 1986 dated 10. 8. 1987.

(2.) IN support of the above writ petition, the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit, wherein, she has stated that nanja lands measuring 1. 05 acres in R. S. No. 37/12 and 21 Cents in R. S. No. 18/5, in all measuring 1. 26 acreas in Thittacherry Village , nannilam Taluk belonged to Kanagasabai, Vaithenathan, Murugesan and Viswalingam as their ancestral properties. They agreed to convey the said extent of 1. 20 acres to the petitioner, for a consideration of Rs. 22,680. Accordingly, sale consideration was paid in two instalments and the deed of settlement was also duly executed by them. The petitioner was also put in possession of the lands purchased by her.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, the first respondent district Registrar of Nagapattinam District has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations except that was specifically admitted by him. After narrating all the necessary facts which made the petitioner to file this writ petition, he has stated that the appeal filed by her was posted for hearing on 2. 9. 1986, all the four executants submitted their petition stating that they have no objection for the registration of the said document. The appeal was posted for subsequent hearing on 23. 9. 1986, 7. 10. 1986 and also on 1. 12. 1986. Again from 1. 12. 1986 the appeal was posted on 26. 12. 1986. ON that day the executants and claimants were present before the second respondent. Hence, the appeal was posted to 26. 12. 1986 and from 26. 12. 1986 it was adjourned to 28. 2. 1987 and again posted on 9. 3. 1987, 11. 5. 1987, 8. 6. 1987 and 27. 7. 1987. In the mean time, one Syed Sultan Bibi daughter of the petitioner had written letter that the petitioner had gone abroad and she was not aware of the time of her return, but the petitioner had neither given intimation to the District registrar that she had left India nor appointed an agent or an advocate to act on her behalf in her absence. She had not even informed of her address after leaving India. According to this respondent, the petitioner had totally neglected the District Registrar's order and hence the District Registrar decided to dispose of the case as the appeal is pending for long time and the appearance of the petitioner could not be secured. Judgment was reserved on 10. 8. 1987 and notice was also issued to the executants and claimants stating the said position. He has admitted the fact that the petitioner came to him with the copy of the judgment and asked him whether it could be registered now. The Sub-Registrar told that as the period of 30 days from the date of the order had elapsed, the document could not be admitted for Registration as per section 72 (2) of the Registration Act. Since the petitioner has not produced the document as per the direction of the Registrar within 30 days, and as per the provisions of Section 72 (2) of the Registration Act, the document could not have been registered. Under those circumstances, the respondents submitted that the writ petition has no merits and has to be rejected.