IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.09.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI
W.P.No.20302 of 2010
K.R.Selvaraj Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Tahsildar,
Chozlinganallur Taluk Office,
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 6.8.2010 and to transfer the Patta in the petitioner's name from the original owner for his property at Old No.18/5 (part) New Survey No.18/5A-1 bearing Plot No.88, East Coast Road, Old No.146, New No.49, Enjambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District consisting of 1 acre 0.07 cents bounded on the North by: R.S.No.18/4, South by Plot No.87, East by: Road and West by: R.S.No.34 in New Patta No.3378.
For Petitioner : Mr.Muralidaran
For Respondent : Mr.K.Balakrishnan, AGP
O R D E R
Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.
2.The writ petition is filed for directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 6.8.2010 and to transfer the Patta in the petitioner’s name from the original owner for his property at Old No.18/5 (part) New Survey No.18/5A-1 bearing Plot No.88, East Coast Road, Old No.146, New No.49, Enjambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
3.According to the petitioner, the property in question originally belonged to one M.Ramasamy. The said Ramasamy offered to sell the property to the petitioner and the petitioner agreed to purchase the property for sale consideration of Rs.1 crore and sale agreement came to be executed on 2.4.2008 on which date a sum of Rs.80lakhs is paid as part payment and time for completing the sale is 90 days from the date of agreement and time is the essence of the contract as per clause 4 of the agreement and possession of the property to be handed over at the time of registration of sale deed.
4.While so, there arose some misunderstanding between the parties resulting in O.S.No.421 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif, Alandur filed by the petitioner against the owner of the property viz., Ramasamy for permanent injunction restraining the said Ramasamy from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit property. The suit in O.S.No.120 of 2010 along with I.A.No.897 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of permanent injunction and not for the relief of specific performance of the agreement before the vacation court and thereafter transferred to the District Munsif Court, Alandur and renumbered as O.S.No.421 of 2010. As per ‘A’ Diary Extract, the respondent was set exparte in I.A.No.897 of 2010 by order dated 26.7.2010 and the suit stood adjourned to 9.8.2010 for filing written statement and for further orders. In the mean time, the petitioner applied to the respondent/Tahsildar on 06.08.2010 to transfer the patta in his name on the strength of the exparte order passed in the suit and within 10 days from the date of submitting his representation, he approached this Court with the present writ petition for the relief stated supra.
6. The facts made available herein would reveal that the petitioner is only an agreement holder and the agreement is not culminated into any registered sale deed and hence, no right is conveyed to the petitioner under the said agreement. The suit filed by the petitioner is only for the relief of permanent injunction and the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers do not support the contention of the petitioner that the suit is decreed exparte. Even assuming it to be acceptable that the exparte decree is granted for permanent injunction it will not clothe the petitioner with any right to claim title over to the property without having any sale deed executed and registered in his favour and only thereafter the petitioner can as the owner of the property apply for transfer of patta. Till then, no right is accrued to the petitioner to seek transfer of patta and the question of directing the authority concerned to consider his representation dated 6.8.2010 in this regard does not at all arise herein.
7. In the result, the writ petition fails. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil forum for the relief of specific performance of the agreement and to make a representation to the authority concerned subject to the outcome of the civil suit. No costs.
rk
To
The Tahsildar,
Chozlinganallur Taluk Office,
Kancheepuram District