LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-425

V. RAVIKUMAR Vs. SUB-REGISTRAR

Decided On November 18, 2019
V. Ravikumar Appellant
V/S
SUB-REGISTRAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner had filed this writ petition, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Cancellation Deed dated 09.10.2009 executed by the Respondents 2 to 4 and registered as Document No.6165/2006 on the file of the First Respondent and quash the same and consequently forbearing the Respondents 2 to 9 or any person claiming under them from in any manner dealing with the properties in T.S.No. 11/1311 in Ganapathy Village to an extent of 1089 Sq.ft., S.F. No.708/2B to an extent of 0.30 1/3 acre of Kalapatti Village and S.F. No. 478 to an extent of 4320 Sq.ft of Veerapandi Village, Coimbatore District purchased by the Petitioner by registered Sale Deed dated 13.07.2006 under Document No.3951/2006 on the file of the First Respondent.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he purchased landed property from respondents 2 to 4 who were the original owners of the said property, through their Power of Attorney, 5th respondent herein, for a total consideration of Rs.20 lakhs by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2006 and the same was registered as Document No.3159 of 2006. After purchase, the petitioner was put in possession of the property. However, after purchase, since respondents 2 to 4 along with others came and attempted to interfere with his possession, the petitioner moved a civil suit in O.S.No.2231 of 2006 before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore for permanent injunction. In the said suit, a written statement was filed by respondents 2 to 4, wherein, while admitting the execution of Power of Attorney in favour of 5th respondent, the respondents 2 to 4 denied the suit on other grounds. Later in the year 2007, the petitioner learnt through his counsel that the respondents 2 to 4 cancelled the sale deed.

(3.) According to the petitioner, originally the owners filed the document to cancel his sale deed, but the same was not accepted by the 1st respondent, however, 3rd respondent filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.39673 of 2006 and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the said writ petition, cancellation of sale deed was effected. The petitioner was not aware of the writ proceedings since in the said writ petition, the petitioner was not impleaded as respondent and no notice was served on him. Consequent to the cancellation of the sale deed, respondents 2 to 4 sold one of the properties to respondents 6 to 9. Aggrieved by the unilateral cancellation deed dated 9.10.2006, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition, seeking to quash the same.