Madras High Court
Catherine Daniel vs The Joint Ii Sub-Registrar on 22 October, 2021
W.P.No.33999 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P. No.33999 of 2016
and W.M.P Nos.29337 of 2016 & 5413 of 2020
Catherine Daniel ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Joint II Sub-Registrar,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai.
2. Gladis Lucas
3. Liji @ Jessy Lucas
4. Steffi Lucas ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records pertaining to the registration of the Cancellation Deed dated
17.01.2014 executed by the respondents 2 to 4 in favour of the petitioner
registered as Document No.42/2014 in the office of the first respondent and
quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to remove the
entry of document No.42 of 2014 from the Encumbrance Certificate in respect
of the property.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.33999 of 2016
For Petitioner : Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Advocate.
For R2 to R4 : Mr.R.Imayavaramban
For M/s.Ramalingam Associates
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining
to the registration of the Cancellation Deed dated 17.01.2014 executed by the
respondents 2 to 4 in favour of the petitioner registered as Document
No.42/2014 in the office of the first respondent and quash the same and
consequently directing the first respondent to remove the entry of document
No.42 of 2014 from the Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the property.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents 2 to 4 herein
executed a Settlement Deed dated 10.12.2013 registered vide document
No.1367 of 2013 in favour of the petitioner. In pursuant to the said settlement
deed, the petitioner executed Settlement Deed dated 12.10.2015 in favour of
her sister and presented the same for registration before the first respondent.
The said Settlement Deed was kept pending for the reason that the Settlement
Deed executed in favour of the petitioner dated 10.12.2013 was cancelled by
the Cancellation of Settlement Deed dated 17.01.2014, registered vide
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.33999 of 2016
document No.42 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent. Hence, the
petitioner approached this Court with the above said prayer.
3. Heard Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the first respondent and Mr. R.Imayavaramban, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 2 to 4.
4. Admittedly, the Cancellation of Settlement Deed was executed
unilaterally by the respondents 2 to 4 herein and registered the same by the
first respondent. The very registration of the Cancellation of Settlement Deed
is contrary to law, since the first respondent has no power or authority to
cancel the settlement deed unilaterally without the knowledge of the petitioner
and without notice to the petitioner herein.
5. In this regard, it is relevant to relay upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1, in the case of
Latif Estate Line India Ltd Vs. Hadeeja Ammal, which was subsequently
followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.108 of 2020
dated 24.01.2020, in the case of Kanniyan and anr Vs. Saranya and ors,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.33999 of 2016
wherein it is held as follows:
“5. We have considered the submissions raised
and we find that the Full Bench has dealt with the
aforesaid issues in detail holding that the writ petition
would be maintainable, and on merits also held that 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. The sum and substance, therefore, is that
the writ petition filed by the respondents could be
entertained, and in our opinion has been rightly
allowed, following the dictum of the Full Bench in the
case of Latif Estate Line India Ltd vs Hadeeja
Ammal reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 cited supra.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants then
contends that the issuance of a Writ by this Court should
not amount to extinguishing of any of the claims that the
appellants can set up, questioning the very execution of
the settlement deed dated 25.02.2008.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the W.A.No.108 of 2020 appellants that the appellants'
right to a settlement deed dated 25.02.2008 cannot be
usurped by any legal provision and more so, the writ
petition could not have been entertained after such a
long passage of time.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.33999 of 2016
8. We may clarify that an otherwise void
document, as held by the Full Bench, cannot rejuvenate
or survive any lapse of time and would not improve the
situation any further, in as much as the document is
non-est in the eyes of law. The order of the learned
Single Judge dated 10.08.2018 is simply a declaration to
that effect, taking into account the law propounded by
the Full Bench, which in no way defeats the rights of the
appellants to contest the original settlement deed dated
25.02.2008. We say this for the reason that the learned
counsel for the appellants is right in his submission that
the declaration granted by the High Court cannot
extinguish the rights of the appellants to contest their
position before the appropriate forum and even
otherwise, the appellants must have been under the
belief that the cancellation deed had fulfilled the said
purpose. This may also be coupled with the issue of
limitation, if any action is proposed by the appellants
and we therefore, make it clear that from that point of
view, W.A.No.108 of 2020 the filing of the writ petition
and the grant of declaration on 10.08.2018 shall not be
a disadvantage in that regard.”
6. In view of the above settled law, this Court has no hesitation to
allow the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Cancellation of Settlement Deed
dated 17.01.2014 in document No.42 of 2014 is declared as null and void. The
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.33999 of 2016
first respondent is directed to remove the entry of document No.42 of 2014
from the Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the property. The respondents 2
to 4 are at liberty to challenge the said settlement deed dated 10.12.2013, in the
manner known to law.
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
22.10.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.33999 of 2016
To
1. The Joint II Sub-Registrar,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.33999 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
W.P. No.33999 of 2016 and
W.M.P Nos.29337 of 2016 & 5413 of 2020
22.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
