Madras High Court

R.Bhuvaneswari vs The Sub Registrar on 12 January, 2022

                                                                                 W.P.No.18089 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 12.01.2022

                                                       CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                W.P.No.18089 of 2021
                                                        and
                                               W.M.P.No.19320 of 2021
                     R.Bhuvaneswari                                              ... Petitioner

                                                          vs.

                     1.The Sub Registrar
                       Anna Nagar,
                       Chennai.

                     2.R.Shantha

                     3.R.Suguna

                     4.R.Vidyasagar

                     5.R.Parimaladevi                                            ... Respondents
                     Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
                     relate to the registration of the Unilateral Cancellation of Settlement Deed
                     D.No.6373 of 1992 dated 18.12.1992 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Anna
                     Nagar, executed by petitioner's father namely V.Raman and Register by the
                     1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent
                     to remove the connected entries in the register.


                     1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    W.P.No.18089 of 2021




                                  For Petitioner     : Mr.V.Venkatesan

                                  For R1             : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                       Special Government Pleader

                                  For R2, R3 and R5 : No Appearance


                                                         ORDER

The writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records relate to the registration of the Unilateral

Cancellation of Settlement Deed D.No.6373 of 1992 dated 18.12.1992 on

the file of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar, executed by petitioner's father

namely V.Raman and register by the 1st respondent and quash the same and

consequently, direct the 1st respondent to remove the connected entries in

the register.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in

S.No.362/1B(part) situated at No.4/18, Elango Nagar, 2nd Main Raod, Padi,

Chennai, Plot Nos.17 and 18, to an extent of 2400 sq.ft., owned by the

petitioner's father. During his life time, he executed a Settlement Deed in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18089 of 2021

favour of the 4th respondent herein, who is brother of the petitioner's herein

to an extent of 1200 sq.ft., vide Document No.42/1984. In respect of the

remaining land, he executed a Settlement Deed dated 20.11.1989 in favour

of the petitioner registered vide Document No.5318/1989. Thereafter, the

entire revenue records were mutated in favour of the petitioner and she

obtained electricity connection and assessed the property tax. However, her

father executed an unilateral Cancellation of Settlement Deed dated

18.12.1992 registered vide Document No.6373/1992, without any notice to

the petitioner and without any knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner

did not aware of the said fact and in fact, she obtained loan to develop the

said property and subsequently, the entire loan has been settled in the year

2008. Subsequently, the petitioner's father died in the year 2009.

3. After registering the document, no authority has power to

cancel the registration of document. The Civil Court alone can set aside the

registered document. The 1st respondent has no power to register the

unilateral cancellation of settlement deed that too presented unilaterally,

without any notice to the petitioner and without giving opportunity of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18089 of 2021

hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the unilateral Cancellation of Settlement

Deed dated 18.12.1992 registered vide Document No.6373/1992 on the file

of the Sub Registrar Office, Anna Nagar is hereby declared as bad and non-

est in the eye of law. In this regard, it is relevant to relied upon the

Judgment reported in 2017(2) CWC 796 dated 31.07.2017 P.A.G.Kumaran

-vs- Inspector General of Registration held as follows:

"13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not only based on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2014 (4) CTC 572 (SC) (cited supra) that this Court has rendered a finding with regard to the cancellation of settlement deed, in W.P.No.6230 and 6231 of 2011 (cited supra),but also referring to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 (cited supra) to show that when once the property is settled, it cannot be over- ruled or ignored that a unilateral cancellation at the instance of the person who has settled the property, can be cancelled, unless and otherwise it establishes fraud or against the public policy.

14. Though it has been vociferously contended by the learned counsel for the third

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18089 of 2021

respondent that the deed of cancellation can be done by the respondents 1 and 2 and in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 (cited supra), as could be seen from paragraphs quoted therein above, it is no doubt true that the Writ Petition is maintainable, provided there are no disputed questions of fact. In this case, there is clear evidence to show that there are disputed questions of facts, namely that after the property has been settled in favour of the petitioner, under the guise of family dispute, the registration of the property was sought to be cancelled.

15. Though it is not in dispute that the property was purchased by the third respondent, as admitted by the petitioner, there is subsequent development which led to the settlement of the property in favour of the petitioner by the third respondent. Naturally, to avoid any stamp duty, such registration has taken place between the husband and wife and when the dispute arose, it comes to light as to under what circumstances, the property has been settled in favour of one person by the spouse. Since, as narrated by the third

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18089 of 2021

respondent in the counter that there are disputed questions of facts, the matter has got to be resolved only before the civil forum. This Court cannot render any finding based on the disputed questions of fact, as the parties will have to let in evidence.

16. In view of the fact that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed made by the first and second respondents is bad, this Court declares that the said cancellation of document, namely Deed of Cancellation of Settlement deed, registered as Document No.3328 of 2014, dated 10.11.2014, is illegal and in view of the same, the first and second respondents are directed to remove the entries in the Register and the subsequent transaction, namely settling the property in favour of the son of the third respondent, made pursuant to the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed, is also null and void. All the entries have got to be removed and this has got to be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court makes it clear that this order will not prevent the third respondent from approaching the Civil Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18089 of 2021

and establish her right over the property in question and if done, the Civil Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made in this writ petition touching on the merits of the matter. As this Court has held that the cancellation of settlement deed is illegal and without jurisdiction, and declared the same as null and void, if any suit is filed, the same has got to be decided by the Civil Court in accordance with law, including the issue of limitation. If the third respondent goes before appropriate forum with regard to the cancellation of settlement deed, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition, this Court expects that the said civil forum to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, from the date of initiation of such suit, and the matter shall not be adjourned beyond seven working days at any point of time. The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial if such suit is filed."

4. The unilateral Cancellation of Settlement Deed dated

18.12.1992 vide Document No.6373/1992 is hereby set aside. The 1st

respondent is directed to correct the entries in the encumbrance register and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18089 of 2021

all the relevant records. In view of the legal principles settled in the above

Judgment, unilaterally cancellation of settlement deed is contrary to law.

However, the 2nd to 5th respondents are at liberty to challenge the settlement

deed before the Civil Court in the manner known to law.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

12.01.2022 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes dm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18089 of 2021