Madras High Court
P.Palanisamy vs The Inspector General Of ... on 31 October, 2022
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
P.Palanisamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome,
Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Joint Sub Registrar No.2,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
4.P.Papanayakar
5.Ponammal
6.R.Gopal
7.R.Devivasigamani
8.R.Sampath ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to
unilateral cancellation of settlement deed dated 18.05.2012 bearing
Document No.2038/2012 on the file of third respondent and quash
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy
For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishna Raja for R1 to R3
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.Mukunth for R4
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
R5 – No Appearance
Mr.C.V.Vijayakumar for R6 to R8
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of
Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to unilateral
cancellation of settlement deed dated 18.05.2012 bearing Document
No.2038/2012 on the file of third respondent and to quash the same.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is the
father of the petitioner and he settled the property purchased by him
in favour of the petitioner vide unconditional and irrevocable
settlement deed dated 07.01.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner's
father, unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour
of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
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.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent
submitted that the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madurai Bench of this
Court held that unilateral cancellation of a document is invalid,
however, the document is still intact and it has to be decided before
the competent civil Court. Hence, this Court may grant liberty to the
fourth respondent to approach the competent Civil Court challenging
the settlement deed.
5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
6.The issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
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, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
(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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
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
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.”
7.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. The impugned Document
No.2038/2012 dated 18.05.2012 on the file of third respondent is set
aside. However, liberty is granted to the fourth respondent to work
out the remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.
31.10.2022
pri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome,
Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Joint Sub Registrar No.2,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31140 of 2015
31.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
