K KATHIRVEL Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lands are situated at Villupuram District, Gingee Taluk, Sathiyamangalam Mathura Palapadi Village. The petitioner is a auction purchaser. The District Munsif has issued a sale certificate on the basis of sale deed. The property was registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Sathiyamangalam. The possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner on 26.01.1981 and that day onwards, the petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment of the property without interference and hindrance.

(2.) The property belongs to one Rangasamy Gramani, who had borrowed money. A civil suit in O.S.No.791 of 1972 was filed before the Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, by Kanthappa Chettiar, for recovering money. The suit was decreed on 30.07.1992 and in the execution of the decree, property was attached. In an auction conducted on 10.09.1980, the property was purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that one M.Subramani, 5th respondent herein, S/o.Muthusamy Gounder residing at Puthupalayam Village, purchased the property from the judgment debtor Rangasamy Gramani, by way of sale deed dated 29.01.1973.Since the said M.Subramani, was interfering with the petitioner, the petitioner states that he filed a suit in O.S.No.212 of 1985 before the District Munsif Court, Gingee, for a declaration for title of the property and sought for a permanent injunction restraining the said Kanthappa Chettiar with the interference from the possession. The petitioner states that the suit was decreed by an order dated 30.07.1992.

(3.) The learned District Munsif by an order dated 30.07.1992, observed that the sale deed dated 29.01.1973, executed by the Rangasamy Gramani, judgment debtor in favour of M.Subramani is null and void. Appeal was preferred by Mr.Subramani against the judgment dated 30.07.1992, was dismissed by the Sub-Court in A.S.No.81 of 1992 by its order dated 30.08.1999. There is no subsequent appeal and therefore, the order attained finality. The petitioner states that, when he went to obtain the encumbrance certificate in respect of the property from the concerned Registrar Office, he was shocked to find that the 5th respondent/M.Subramani and his sons respondent Nos.6 to 10 had executed the sale deed dated 21.05.2010 on the same property in favour of one K.Kuppan, 11th respondent herein and the sale deed was registered in document No.907 of 2010 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Sathiyamangalam.