A. Thangavel vs The Superintendent of Police

N. Kirubakaran, J.—If the contention of the petitioner is to be believed, no sale deed will be safe and no purchaser will be safe. As an after thought after selling the property for a proper sale consideration and execute the sale deed as early as 13.05.2010, noting that the price of the property got appreciated, the petitioner gave a complaint, which was not rightly registered, has made the petitioner, to come to this Court.

The petitioner was the owner of the property comprised in Survey No. 72, 73/10, 73/11 and 73/3 in Ambadurai Village, Dindigul Taluk. The said property was agreed to be sold by the petitioner to the fourth respondent, for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Believing the representation of the fourth respondent, the petitioner executed a sale deed, on the hope that the fourth respondent would set off the amount and balance consideration would be paid to the petitioner by the fourth respondent. Based on the assurance only, the petitioner executed the sale deed dated 13.05.2010. At the time of execution of the sale deed, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner. Subsequently, through 11 installments, including three installments by cheques, only a sum of Rs. 23,82,500/- was paid. The balance sale consideration is only Rs. 36,17,500/-. Since the sale deed was executed, without full payment of the sale price, no title can be conferred on the fourth respondent. Hence, the petitioner demanded the said price amount from the fourth respondent. As the fourth respondent refused to pay the balance amount, he gave a representation on 17.09.2011 to the higher authority and the second respondent conducted an enquiry, based on the order obtained by the petitioner in Crl. O.P. (MD). No. 8592 of 2012 dated 04.07.2012.

After enquiry, the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- to the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent would handover the property or re-convey the property to the petitioner. Since it has not been acted upon, the petitioner gave a complaint on 18.06.2013, which was not registered. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

Heard Mr. P. Senthur Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

It is seen that the petitioner himself has admitted that he has executed the sale deed on 13.05.2010 itself in respect of his land. No ordinary prudent person or even layman would not go to the Registrar Office, without getting full sale consideration and execute the sale deed. The story put forth by the petitioner could be termed as "Fairy Tale" and not a reality. Having executed the sale deed in 2010, after coming to know the appreciation of the value of the property, the petitioner has blackmailed the fourth respondent, to extract money from him. Initially, he gave a complaint in 2011 and it was closed after enquiry. Moreover, the fourth respondent already filed a suit in O.S. No. 147 of 2011 before the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul against the petitioner, which is being contested by the petitioner by filing written statement, where he is expected to contest and get orders on merits. When that being the case, the petitioner cannot approach this Court, seeking a direction to register the complaint, stating that the money was not paid, and only based on the assurance given by the fourth respondent, he had executed the sale deed. If at all anybody can enter, if entire sale consideration was not paid, it could only be sale agreement and not a sale deed. The sale deed executed would show that he got the full consideration. The complaint was given only after one year and thereafter, and there is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not give complaint immediately. It is usual cry of the person, who executed the sale deed for the then market price and after some time, after appreciation, would crave for higher price, based on the present market value. This kind of practice has to be deprecated, otherwise, no purchaser would be safe. Therefore, the petition lacks any merits.

Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. To give a full stop to this kind of practice trying to blackmail the purchaser after lapse of time, in view of the appreciation of the price and using police force as well as court, is illegal. Hence, this Court intends to slap costs on the petitioner. Hence, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is directed to be paid to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order passed by this Court is only with regard to the criminal complaint given by the petitioner.