Madras High Court
V.Selvam vs The Sub – Registrar on 18 October, 2022
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
And
M.P.No.1 of 2015
V.Selvam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub – Registrar,
Sub – Registrar Office,
Jayamkondan,
Ariyalur District.
2.Chidambaram
3.C.Sakthivel
4.Alexander
5.Meena
6.Minor.Nandhini
Represented by Mother
Meena
7.Minor.Naveen
Represented by Mother
Meena
8.Thangam
9.M.R.Anandakumar
10.A.Thangam
(R5 to R10 impleaded vide order
dated 16.03.2022 made in
WMP.1028/2021 in
WP.37988/2015 by MGRJ) ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the Deed of Cancellation of
settlement deed executed by the second respondent dated 06.07.2012
registered as document No.1008 of 2012 on the file of first respondent
as null and void and not binding upon the petitioner's right, ownership
or possession over the properties given under the settlement deed
dated 11.10.2011 registered as Document number 1770 on the file of
first respondent as null and void.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Hariharan Nair
For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand for R1
Additional Government Pleader
M/s.T.T.Ravichandran for R2 & R3
M/s.S.Kamalakannan for R4
M/s.M.Senthilvadivu for R5, R8 to R10
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of
Writ of Declaration declaring that the Deed of Cancellation of
settlement deed executed by the second respondent dated 06.07.2012
registered as document No.1008 of 2012 on the file of first respondent
as null and void and not binding upon the petitioner's right, ownership
or possession over the properties given under the settlement deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
dated 11.10.2011 registered as Document number 1770 on the file of
first respondent as null and void.
2.The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in
support of this petition is that the petitioner's father executed
settlement deed in her favour and registered the same in the Sub –
Registrar Office, Jayamkondam vide Document No.1770 of 2011 dated
11.10.2011 and handed over the same to the petitioner. After nearly
one year, quarrel arose inbetween the petitioner and her brother since
her brother did not repay the sum of Rs.65,000/- borrowed from her
and her brother started to give trouble to her by creating
encumbrances in the property. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit for
declaration and injunction in O.S.No.233 of 2013 before the District
Munsif Court, Jayamkondam. While such being the position, the
petitioner's father, at the instance of the petitioner's brother,
unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed executed in her favour
Hence, this writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent
submitted that already the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration
and injunction in O.S.No.233 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
Jayamkondam. When the said suit is pending, the petitioner has no
right to file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for the very same issue.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
first respondent submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition
has already been considered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madurai
Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.6889 of 2015 etc., batch,
dated 02.09.2022 [Sasikala Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer
cum Sub Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District] and has
categorically held that unilateral cancellation of a document is
impermissible in law.
5.The issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra
and it has already been considered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the
Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.6889 of 2015 etc.,
batch, dated 02.09.2022 [Sasikala Vs. The Revenue Divisional
Officer cum Sub Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District], the
relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“44.From the discussions and conclusions
we have reached above with reference to
various provisions of Statutes and precedents,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
we reiterate the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and Ors. -vs-
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 15 SCC 207 and the Full
Bench of this Court in Latif Estate Line India
Ltd., case, reported in AIR 2011(Mad) 66 and
inclined to follow the judgment of three
member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Veena Singh's case reported in (2022) 7 SCC 1
and the judgment of two member Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Ltd., case, reported in 2022
SCC On-line SC 544 for the following
propositions:
(a)A sale deed or a deed of conveyance
other than testamentary dispositions which is
executed and registered cannot be unilaterally
cancelled.
(b)Such unilateral cancellation of sale
deed or a deed of conveyance is wholly void
and non est and does not operate to execute,
assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or
interest in the property.
(c)Such unilateral cancellation of sale
deed or deed of conveyance cannot be
accepted for registration.
(d)The transferee or any one claiming
under him or her need not approach the civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
Court and a Writ Petition is maintainable to
challenge or nullify the registration.
(e)However, an absolute deed of sale or
deed of conveyance which is duly executed by
the transferor may be cancelled by the Civil
Court at the instance of transferor as
contemplated under Section 31 of Specific
Relief Act.
(f)As regards gift or settlement deed, a
deed of revocation or cancellation is
permissible only in a case which fall under
Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act, and
the Registering Authority can accept the deed
of cancellation of gift for registration subject to
the conditions specified in para 42 of this
judgment.
(g)The legal principles above stated by
us cannot be applied to cancellation of Wills or
power of Attorney deed which are revocable
and not coupled with interest.
45.As a result of our forgoing
conclusions, we answer the reference by
holding that the Registrar has no power to
accept the deed of cancellation to nullify the
deed of conveyance made earlier, when the
deed of conveyance has already been acted
upon by the transferee. Since anyone may try
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
to mislead or misinterpret our judgment by
referring to the question of reference we insist
that our answer to the reference should be
understood in the light of our conclusions
summarised in the previous paragraph.”
6.Applying the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, this
Court is inclined to grant the relief sought for in this writ petition. The
writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, liberty is granted to the
private respondents to work out the remedy in the manner known to
law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
18.10.2022
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1.The Sub – Registrar,
Sub – Registrar Office,
Jayamkondan,
Ariyalur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.37988 of 2015
And
M.P.No.1 of 2015
18.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
