Madras High Court
Thamiraparani Investments Ltd vs The Sub Registrar on 7 October, 2021
W.A.No.263 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.263 of 2013
Thamiraparani Investments Ltd.,
rep by its Director Mr.P.Ram Mohan
Flat No.A2, I Floor
“Srishti's Crescendo”
No.24, Desika Road
Mylapore
Chennai 600 004 .. Appellant
-vs-
1. The Sub Registrar
Ponneri
Tiruvallur District
2. The Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road
Pattinapakkam
Chennai 600 028
3. Citrex Products Limited
rep by its Director Mr.K.Balasubramanian
“Atkinson Palace” 2-F-1
No.2, Jyothi Venkatachalam Road
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
4. V.Rajendran
5. Sathish Raj
6. M/s Metafilms (India) Ltd.,
No.157/1, GNT Road
Chinnambedu Post
Kavarapet 601 206 .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 17.04.2012 made in W.P.No.24554 of 2011.
For Appellant :: Mr.R.Subramanian for
M/s G.Rajathi
For Respondents :: Mr.T.Arunkumar
Government Advocate for
R1 & R2
R3-No appearance
Ms.A.Saranya for
M/s Iyer & Thomas for
R4 to R6
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
This writ appeal has been filed by M/s Thamiraparani Investments
Limited against the impugned order dated 17.4.2012 passed in Writ Petition
No.24554 of 2011, wherein the prayer for issuance of a mandamus directing
the respondents 1 & 2 to cancel the registration of the amendment deeds
registered as Document Nos.377-379 of 2009 on the file of the Sub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
Registrar, Ponneri, was refused.
2. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner briefly runs thus:_
M/s Citrex Products Limited, the third respondent herein was
originally the owner of larger extent of 30.8 acres of land in Thatchur and
Peravallur villages in Tiruvallur District. After entering into a sale
agreement with the appellant in respect of 25.8 acres out of 30.8 acres of
land, it is stated that the third respondent had handed over possession to the
appellant. It is also stated that after receipt of the entire sale consideration,
the third respondent also executed a Power of Attorney in respect of the said
extent of land in favour of the nominees of the appellant. Subsequently, the
execution of three sale deeds pertaining to an extent of 11 acres having been
fraudulently made by Mr.V.Rajendran and Mr.R.Satish Raj, the respondents
4 & 5 on behalf of the third respondent, was found out. Therefore, the
execution of the above sale deeds were challenged in O.S.No.57 of 2004
before the Sub Court, Ponneri and the said suit has been now transferred
and pending in re-numbered O.S.No.140 of 2020 before the Sub Court,
Poonamallee. Since the appellant got registered the balance extent of 14.8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
acres of land under a sale deed registered as Document No.97 of 2005 in the
office of the Sub Registrar, Ponneri during the pendency of the above suit
proceedings, steps were taken to amend the sale deeds for 10 acres together
with another sale deed executed in favour of the sixth respondent for 5
acres, in January, 2009. Since the registration has been done without proper
enquiry, the appellant filed the writ petition praying for a direction directing
the respondents 1 & 2 to cancel the registration of the amendment deeds
registered as Document Nos.377-379 of 2009 on the file of the Sub
Registrar, Ponneri. The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, has
refused to accept the case of the appellant/writ petitioner. Aggrieved
thereby, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended heavily that when there was an agreement of sale entered into
with the third respondent in respect of 25.8 acres of land and the possession
was also handed over to the appellant, after executing the sale agreement,
the third respondent had no authority to alienate the same land by executing
the rectification deeds in the year 2009, as they have lost the right to enjoy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
the property from the date of entering into the sale and after handing over
possession to the appellant. In support thereof, placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in M/s Latif Estate Line
India Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Mr.Habib Abdul Latif v.
Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal and others, 2011 (2) CTC 1, learned counsel argued
that when the unilateral cancellation of a sale deed by registered instrument
at the instance of the vendor only encourages fraud and is against public
policy, the appellant is entitled to come to this Court invoking Article 226
of the Constitution of India for cancellation of the amendment deeds. As
the learned single Judge has refused to accept the appellant's prayer, he
pleaded for allowing this writ appeal.
4. Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2, taking support from the very same Full Bench judgment
cited supra, submitted that when the legal position is well settled that a
complete and absolute sale can be cancelled at the instance of the transferor
only by taking recourse to the civil Court by obtaining a decree of
cancellation of sale deed on the ground inter alia of fraud or any other valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
reasons, the present writ appeal is not legally maintainable. Again taking
support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sathya Pal Anand
v. State of M.P. and others, (2016) 10 SCC 767, he has argued that 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, as the
aggrieved party has to challenge the registration and validity of the
document only before the civil Court. In the present case, when the civil
suit in re-numbered O.S.No.140 of 2020 (O.S.No.57 of 2004), in which the
appellant is also one of the plaintiffs, for necessary reliefs is pending before
the Sub Court, Poonamallee, learned Government Advocate pleaded that the
act of the appellant in coming to this Court invoking Article 226 of the
Constitution of India questioning only the registration of the rectification
deeds, is wholly unjustified and untenable.
5. Ms.A.Saranya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6
also submitted that when the parties have already filed various civil suits
and the same are pending, namely, re-numbered O.S.No.140 of 2020
(O.S.No.57 of 2004) on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, another re-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
numbered O.S.No.141 of 2020 (O.S.No.64 of 2004) on the file of the Sub
Court, Poonamallee and yet another suit in C.S.No.51 of 2005 before this
Court, now transferred to the file of the City Civil Court, the filing of the
writ petition questioning the correctness of the registration of the
rectification deeds, is wholly unjustified.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the case on hand,
we are being bound by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this
Court in the case of M/s Latif Estate Line India Ltd., represented by its
Managing Director Mr.Habib Abdul Latif v. Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal and
others, 2011 (2) CTC 1 holding clearly that a complete and absolute sale can
be cancelled at the instance of the transferor only by taking recourse to the
civil Court by obtaining a decree of cancellation of sale deed on the ground
inter alia of fraud or any other valid reasons, which we have also recently
followed in our order dated 28.9.2021 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.59 & 60
of 2016 (S.P.Velayutham etc. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India)
Limited and others), holding as follows:-
“12. Now coming to the core question raised in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
these appeals as to whether the registered sale deed
on the ground of fraudulent execution can be
cancelled by the writ Court exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
said issue is no longer res integra, as the Full
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s
Latif Estate Line India Ltd., represented by its
Managing Director Mr.Habib Abdul Latif v.
Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal and others, 2011 (2) CTC 1,
has succinctly held as follows:-
“57. There is no dispute that a third
party can claim title to the property
against the purchaser who purchased the
property for valuable consideration and
came into possession of the same. But it
is the Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction to give such declaration in
favour of the third party or a stranger.
58. It can also not be overlooked or
ignored that a unilateral cancellation of a
sale deed by registered instrument at the
instance of the vendor only encourages
fraud and is against public policy. But
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
there are circumstances where a deed of
cancellation presented by both the
vendor and the purchaser for registration
has to be accepted by the Registrar if
other mandatory requirements are
complied with. Hence, the vendor by the
unilateral execution of the cancellation
deed cannot annul a registered document
duly executed by him as such an act of
the vendor is opposed to public policy.
59. After giving our anxious
consideration on the questions raised in
the instant case, we come to the
following conclusion: -
(i) A deed of cancellation of a sale
unilaterally executed by the transferor
does not create, assign, limit or
extinguish any right, title or interest
in the property and is of no effect.
Such a document does not create any
encumbrance in the property already
transferred. Hence such a deed of
cancellation cannot be accepted for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
registration.
(ii) Once title to the property is
vested in the transferee by the sale of
the property, it cannot be divested
unto the transferor by execution and
registration of a deed of cancellation
even with the consent of the parties.
The proper course would be to re-
convey the property by a deed of
conveyance by the transferee in
favour of the transferor.
(iii) Where a transfer is effected by
way of sale with the condition that
title will pass on payment of
consideration, and such intention is
clear from the recital in the deed, then
such instrument or sale can be
cancelled by a deed of cancellation
with the consent of both the parties
on the ground of non-payment of
consideration. The reason is that in
such a sale deed, admittedly, the title
remained with the transferor.
(iv) In other cases, a complete and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
absolute sale can be cancelled at the
instance of the transferor only by
taking recourse to the Civil Court by
obtaining a decree of cancellation of
sale deed on the ground inter alia of
fraud or any other valid reasons.
60. Having regard to the conclusions
arrived at as aforesaid, the questions
referred are answered accordingly. The
appeals are referred back to the concerned
Court for deciding the case on merits.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Further, we must also indicate herein that when the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sathya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., and others, (2016)
10 SCC 767, has also made it clear that 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 and the course open to the aggrieved
party is to challenge the registration and validity of that document only
before the competent civil Court, we are unable to find any merits in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
writ appeal.
8. However, Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, referring to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prayed this
Court to exclude the time of proceeding taken by the appellant while
prosecuting the writ petition and the writ appeal before this Court.
9. In our opinion, when the parties have already filed various civil
suits and the same are pending, namely, re-numbered O.S.No.140 of 2020
(O.S.No.57 of 2004) on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, another re-
numbered O.S.No.141 of 2020 (O.S.No.64 of 2004) on the file of the Sub
Court, Poonamallee and yet another suit in C.S.No.51 of 2005 before this
Court, now transferred to the file of the City Civil Court,, it is for the
appellant to move an appropriate application before the jurisdictional trial
Court, that may be considered by the trial Court concerned on merits.
10. With this observation, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Needless
to mention that the civil Court(s) shall decide the question of title to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
property in question in accordance with law. However, there is no order as
to costs.
Speaking/Non speaking order (T.R.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
Index : yes/no 07.10.2021
ss
To
1. The Sub Registrar
Ponneri
Tiruvallur District
2. The Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road
Pattinapakkam
Chennai 600 028
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.263 of 2013
T.RAJA, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
ss
W.A.No.263 of 2013
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
