Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 4016 (MAD)

Prabhuram v. Manoharan

2017-11-27

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, M.VENUGOPAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the submissions made on either side. 2. The Appellant/fifth Respondent has preferred the instant intra-Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 05.09.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 16390 of 2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 3. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order in W.P. (MD) No. 16390 of 2017 (filed by the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner) at Paragraph No.7 had observed the following: "7. In the light of the above submissions, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the 4th respondent to protect his lands registered in his name in respect of Survey No. 1/5A2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such compliance, the 4th respondent shall consider the same and pass orders purely on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of eight weeks therefrom." 4. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner had submitted a fresh representation on 13.10.2017 addressed to the fifth Respondent/Sub-Registrar, Othakadai, wherein, he had prayed for taking of action, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.16390 of 2017. 5. It is the stand of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner that the Appellant/fifth Respondent had entered into an agreement with one Dr.P.Soundarapandian in regard to the purchase of lands in Survey Nos.1/5A, 1/5A2, 1/51, 1/5A3, 1/6, 1/6A in Manalur Village, Thirupoovanam Taluk, measuring an extent of 3 Acres and 80 Cents. It appears that believing the words of the Appellant/fifth Respondent, the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner had mortgaged his residential house for a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- and totally, a sum of Rs.50,50,000/- on numerous dates were sent to the account of the Appellant/fifth Respondent. The plea of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner is that from and out of the said amount, the Appellant/fifth Respondent had purchased the properties in his name measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 70 Cents and the remaining 2 Acres and 10 Cents were registered in the name of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner. The plea of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner is that from and out of the said amount, the Appellant/fifth Respondent had purchased the properties in his name measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 70 Cents and the remaining 2 Acres and 10 Cents were registered in the name of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner. The pith and substance of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner's case is that inasmuch as the Appellant/fifth Respondent had cheated him, a complaint was lodged before the District Crime Branch, Madurai and that the Appellant/fifth Respondent had evaded the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner's calls and endeavoured to create encumbrance in the lands purchased in the name of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner and a representation dated 29.06.2017 was addressed by the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner to the fifth Respondent herein (the fourth Respondent in W.P. (MD) No. 16390 of 2017). Since no action has been taken in the subject matter in issue, the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition. 6. A perusal of the contents of the representation of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner indicates that a request was made by the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner before the Sub-Registrar, Madurai North that in the land in question, without his knowledge, no registration proceedings/action can take place. In fact, in the said representation, the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner had averred in detail as to the purported wrongful acts committed by the Appellant/fifth Respondent. 7. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner submits that the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner had addressed a fresh representation dated 13.10.2017 to the fifth Respondent/Sub-Registrar, Madurai North and for which, a notice was issued by the fifth Respondent/Sub-Registrar, Madurai North, requiring both parties to submit their reply in writing by producing necessary documents in their possession, which are to be submitted, within 21 days from the date of receipt of the communication. 8. According to the Learned Counsel for the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner, the said communication of the fifth Respondent dated 16.10.2017 was received on 31.10.2017. On 21.11.2017 an explanation was submitted by the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner. Soon after receipt of the communication from the fifth Respondent herein, the Appellant/fifth Respondent is reported to have submitted his objections/reply/remarks in the subject matter in issue. As on date, the enquiry date is not yet fixed by the fifth Respondent herein. 9. On 21.11.2017 an explanation was submitted by the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner. Soon after receipt of the communication from the fifth Respondent herein, the Appellant/fifth Respondent is reported to have submitted his objections/reply/remarks in the subject matter in issue. As on date, the enquiry date is not yet fixed by the fifth Respondent herein. 9. In view of the subsequent development that has taken place in the subject matter in issue, namely the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner had submitted his fresh representation dated 13.10.2017 addressed to the fifth Respondent, as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 16390 of 2017, dated 05.09.2017 and also bearing in mind yet another pivotal fact that the Appellant/fifth Respondent had also submitted his objections/reply in the subject matter in issue before the fifth Respondent and what remains now is only an order is to be passed by the fifth Respondent, at this stage, this Court simply directs the fifth Respondent/Sub-Registrar, in the rank of District Registrar (Madurai North), to look into the reply/representation of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner and that of the Appellant/fifth Respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the fifth Respondent, after going through the contents of the representation of the first Respondent/Writ Petitioner dated 13.10.2017 and also by taking into account of the Appellant/fifth Respondent's reply, is to pass a final speaking order on merits, of course, after providing necessary opportunity of personal hearing, in case the situation so warrants/need be and that too, after following the Principles of Natural Justice in true letter and spirit. It cannot be gainsaid that it is open to the respective parties to raise all Factual and Legal Pleas before the fifth Respondent, who shall advert to the same by meeting out both the Factual and Legal pleas set out by the parties, in a complete and comprehensive manner, so as to give a quietus to the controversies surrounding the present subject matter. If the respective parties opine that any oral evidence and necessary documentary evidence are to be let in and marked, it is open to them to avail such opportunities before the fifth Respondent, who shall take note of the same and if the parties require sometime to produce the documents, they are also advised to do so. If the respective parties opine that any oral evidence and necessary documentary evidence are to be let in and marked, it is open to them to avail such opportunities before the fifth Respondent, who shall take note of the same and if the parties require sometime to produce the documents, they are also advised to do so. In any event, the fifth Respondent is to pass a final order in question, within a period of six weeks thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.