Madras High Court

K.Baskaran vs Inspector General Of ... on 2 August, 2021

                                                                              WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 02.08.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                           WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

                     W.P.No.21999 of 2011

                     K.Baskaran                                         ...           Petitioner
                                                            Vs
                     1.Inspector General of Registration,
                       Santhome,
                       Chennai
                     2.The Sub Registrar,
                       Achirapakkam,
                       Kancheepuram District
                     3.Lakshmi Ammal                                    ...           Respondents

Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for records from the file of the second respondent pertaining to the deed of cancellation dated 22.02.2011 under document No.1315 of 2011 in respect of the properties i.e. (i) Punja land measuring 75 cents in survey No.160/1 of No.37, Peria Kallakadi Village, Seyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District within Achirapakkam Sub Registry and (ii) Punja land measuring 21 cents in survey No.113/17 in No.37, Peria Kallakadi Village in Seyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District within Achirapakkam Sub Registry

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Selvaraj For Respondents For R1 & 2 : Mr.Richardson Wilson, Government Advocate

For R3 : Mr.P.Dineshkumar

W.P.No.22000 of 2011

K.Baskaran ... Petitioner Vs

1.Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai

2.The Sub Registrar, Achirapakkam, Kancheepuram District

3.Lakshmi Ammal ... Respondents

                                   For Petitioner     :   Mr.P.Selvaraj
                                   For Respondents
                                         For R1 & 2   : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
                                                        Government Advocate

                                        For R3        : Mr.P.Dineshkumar



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                             WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

                                                    COMMON ORDER

The Writ Petition in WP.No.21999 of 2011 is filed to issue a writ

of certiorari calling for records from the file of the second respondent

pertaining to the deed of cancellation dated 22.02.2011 under document

No.1315 of 2011 in respect of the properties i.e. (i) Punja land measuring 75

cents in survey No.160/1 of No.37, Peria Kallakadi Village, Seyyur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District within Achirapakkam Sub Registry and (ii) Punja

land measuring 21 cents in survey No.113/17 in No.37, Peria Kallakadi

Village in Seyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District within Achirapakkam Sub

Registry; and the Writ petition in WP.No.22000 of 2011 is filed to issue a

writ of certiorari calling for records from the file of the second respondent

pertaining to the deed of cancellation dated 22.02.2011 under document

No.1314 of 2011 in respect of the landed properties mentioned in the

schedule to the said document and quash the same as illegal and

incompetent and without jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner is the grand son of the third respondent. Out of

love and affection, the third respondent executed gift settlement deeds dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

12.05.2010 and 24.08.2010 settling the properties in his favour registered

vide document No.2250 of 2010 and 4114 of 2010 in the Office of the Sub

Registrar, Achirupakkam. The third respondent also delivered the

possession of the subject properties to the petitioner on the date of the

settlement deeds itself. While being so, the third respondent unilaterally

cancelled those settlement deeds by way of cancellation deed dated

22.02.2011.

3. The ground raised by the petitioner is that the cancellation deed

relating to the immovable property is compulsorily registrable under Section

17 of the Indian Registration Act. Under Section 32 (a) of the Indian

Registration Act, if it is transfer of ownership of immovable property, the

photograph and fingerprint of both the parties to be affixed on the

document. In the case of cancellation also, the same procedure should be

followed. Therefore, the cancellation deed produced for registration

unilaterally by the third respondent cannot be registered by the second

respondent. In this regard, following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2016 (10) SCC 67, the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court has held in the case of P.Rukmani Vs.

Amudhavalli reported in 2020 (1) CTC 241, as follows:

7. The Honble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (supra) in paragraph No. 40 held as under:

?The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Yanala Malleshwari was called upon to consider whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed and whether the Registering Officer like District Registrar and/or Sub Registrar appointed by the State Government is bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed is presented. The fact remains that if the stipulation contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1908 are fulfilled, the Registering Officer is bound to register the document. The Registering Officer can refuse to register a document only in situations mentioned in Sections such as 19 to 22, 32 and 35. At the same time, once the document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document. The aggrieved party can challenge the registration and validity of the document

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

before the Civil Court. The majority view of the Full Bench was that if a person is aggrieved by the Extinguishment Deed or its registration, his remedy is to seek appropriate relief in the Civil Court and a Writ Petition is not the proper remedy. ?

8. It was also stated at the bar that a civil suit, namely, O.S.No. 142 of 2008 has already been filed by the present Appellants P.Rukumani and others seeking the cancellation of the said sale deed dated 09.03.2005 which was later on cancelled by the another cancellation deed dated 20.09.2007 against the present respondents Amudhavalli and others, who have been arrayed as defendants and the said civil suit is pending trial in the Court of III Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore.

9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, we are of the clear opinion that in a case relating to execution of a conveyance deed or a sale deed or cancellation thereof, if there is any dispute about the rights of the parties involved therein, the only appropriate remedy for the parties is to approach the Civil Court by way of civil suit. The act of registration of a document is a consequential act which will be subject to the decree of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

Civil Court in case such a dispute arises.

10. We are of the clear opinion that such a relief could not have been sought or granted in Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The civil rights of the parties based on relevant evidence can only be determined by a Civil Court by a competent Civil Court and not by the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such private rights of the parties cannot be made a subject matter of writ jurisdiction. The writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lie only against the State or instrumentality of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, such determination of private civil rights of the parties cannot be made subject matter of writ petition.

11. The act of the Sub Registrar in such cases will naturally depend upon the determination of the rights of the respective parties once adjudicated by the competent civil Court and therefore prematurely also such writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked, against Sub Registrar.

12. The Judgment of the Full Bench in Latif Estate Line India Ltd., (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 Mr. M.Sriram, vide paragrah No. 59 quoted above, has not laid down that in such cases Writ Jurisdiction can be invoked or is an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

appropriate remedy to be invoked. On the contrary, Clause

(iv) of Paragraph 59 quoted above clearly stipulates that the complete and absolute sale can be cancelled at the instance of the transferor only by taking course by way of civil Court by obtaining decree of cancellation of sale deed on the ground of fraud or other valid reasons. This Judgment of the Full Bench, with great respects, strengthens the view which we have taken above.

13. On the contrary, the Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (supra) in paragraph No. 40 again clearly stipulates the view that aggrieved party in such cases can approach only the civil Court. Therefore, we are of the clear and fortified view that the Writ Petition in this case by the respondents/writ petitioners was a misconceived remedy and prematurely invoked by them seeking the cancellation of the Cancellation Deed dated 20th September 2007 and the learned Single Judge has erred, with great respects, in granting that relief.

4. Accordingly, the aggrieved person in such cases can approach

only the civil court. The relief prayed in this writ petition could not have

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.21999 & 22000 of 2011

been sought or granted in Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The civil rights of the parties based on relevant

evidence can only be determined by a Civil Court by a competent Civil

Court and not by the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Therefore, the writ petitions itself are devoid of merits and liable to

be dismissed.

5. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions are

dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court to

challenge the alleged cancellation deeds executed by the third respondent.