Madras High Court
M.Selvarani vs The Inspector General Of ... on 29 July, 2021
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.10242 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
1.M.Selvarani
2.G.Valarmathi
3.P.Logeswari ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 28.
2.Joint Sub Registrar No.2,
Kanchipuram.
3.Kumaravel Chettiar
4.K.Selvaraman
5.K.Jayavel
6.K.Palanivel ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to registration of the cancellation deed dated 13.01.2015 vide
document No.131/2015 on the file of the second respondent and
consequential settlement deed dated 13.1.2015, bearing document
No.133/2015 made in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 by the third
respondent and quash the same with consequential direction to the second
respondent to delete the entries with regard to the above said deeds from the
"A" Register maintained by the second respondent.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Haribabu
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Ms.Akila Rajendran
Government Counsel
For Respondents 3 to 6 : No appearance
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus
to call for the records relating to registration of the cancellation deed dated
13.01.2015 vide document No.131/2015 on the file of the second
respondent and consequential settlement deed dated 13.1.2015, bearing
document No.133/2015 made in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 by the
third respondent and quash the same with consequential direction to the
second respondent to delete the entries with regard to the above said deeds
from the "A" Register maintained by the second respondent.
2. The case of the petitioners is that, these petitioners are the
daughters of the third respondent. The third respondent had acquired the
property through a sale deed dated 07.04.1958 bearing Document No.3980
and had enjoyed the property. During the life time, due to love and
affection, the third respondent wanted to settle the property to and in favour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
of the petitioners, who are none other than the daughters of the third
respondent.
3. Accordingly, the third respondent executed a settlement deed on
10.09.2014 in respect of the property concerned to and in favour of the
petitioners, which was registered as Document No.5962 of 2014 on the file
of the second respondent Registrar Office.
4. Subsequently, when the petitioners wanted to promote their
property, when they visited the Registering authorities to get an
encumbrance certificate and on receipt of the same, according to the
petitioners, they were shocked to know that, the settlement deed made by
the third respondent in favour of the petitioners dated 10.09.2014 had been
unilaterally cancelled by cancellation of settlement deed dated 13.01.2015
bearing registered Document No.131/2015 on the file of the second
respondent.
5. It also come to the knowledge of the petitionerd that, on the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
day i.e., on 13.01.2015, in turn, the property in question had been resettled
in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 by the third respondent that also reflected
in the encumbrance certificate. Only at this context, the petitioners had
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforesaid
prayer, challenging the unilateral cancellation made by the third respondent
of the settlement deed already made in favour of the petitioners.
6. Heard Mr.P.Haribabu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
who would submit that, as per the settled legal proposition, the settlement if
at all anything made due to love and affection cannot be unilaterally
cancelled without the knowledge and concurrence of the Settlee, this has
been reiterated in number of judgments by this Court. Therefore, the
unilateral cancellation made against the settlement deed made in favour of
the petitioners by the third respondent is unlawful. Therefore, the said
document shall be declared to be void and consequently, a direction can be
given to the Registering authority to register the same in Index No.2 by
annulling the document of cancellation of document, he contended.
7. I have heard Ms.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
appearing for the official respondents who would submit that, insofar as the
registration of document is concerned, since it has been presented to the
Registering authority with required stamp duty and the person, who
cancelled the settlement deed, was the original owner of the property who
made the settlement earlier in favour of the petitioners, probably, the second
respondent Registering authority, having receipt of the document, had
entertained and registered the same. Therefore, if at all the said registration
had been made that is the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed, then
it would run contra to the law declared by this Court in the Full Bench
Judgment reported in Latif Estate Line India case and the other cases on this
line. Therefore, a suitable orders, in this regard, can be passed by this Court,
she contended.
8. Though notice had been served on the private respondents, their
names and full address have also been printed or shown in the cause list,
none of the private respondents appeared before this Court.
9. I have considered said submissions made by the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this
Court.
10. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, as endorsed by the learned Government Counsel
appearing for the official respondents, no unilateral cancellation of
settlement is permitted under law. This has been decided by an authoritative
pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1
in the matter of Latif Estate Line Inida Limited Vs. Hadeeja Ammal and in
another case reported in 2014 (3) CTC 113 in the matter of
D.V.Loganathan V. The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Pallavaram, Chennai - 600 044 and another. In view of the settled legal
position, the unilateral cancellation made by the third respondent against the
settlement deed already made in favour of the petitioners, who are none
other than the daughters of the third respondent is unlawful, therefore, this
Court has no hesitation to hold that, the said cancellation deed dated
13.01.2015 executed by the third respondent and registered at the second
respondent office is to be declared as a void one and accordingly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
second respondent registrar office shall enter the same in Index No.2
annulling the document of cancellation of deed dated 13.01.2015, cancelling
the earlier settlement deed dated 10.09.2014 made by the third respondent in
favour of the petitioners.
11. Though it was claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that, the consequential settlement deed dated 13.01.2015 made by the third
respondent in respect of the respondents 4 to 6 also is equally void and
unlawful, that kind of declaration that the petitioners can get it by
approaching the competent Civil Court and insofar as the said prayer is
concerned, the petitioners are relegated to approach the competent Civil
Court. However, it is made clear that, since the settlement made already in
favour of the petitioners dated 10.09.2014 now can be restored, in view of
the declaration of voidness of the cancellation of settlement deed dated
13.01.2015, the settlement deed dated 10.09.2014 made by the third
respondent in favour of the petitioners shall get restored and accordingly,
the necessary endorsement shall be made by the second respondent
Registering authority in Book No.2 at the second respondent office and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
same can be reflected in the encumbrance certificate to be issued in future.
The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the second
respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
12.With these directions, this Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Sgl
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 28.
2.Joint Sub Registrar No.2,
Kanchipuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sgl
W.P.No.10242 of 2015
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
