Madras High Court
B.Balakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Registration on 12 September, 2022
W.P(MD).No.13543 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.13543 of 2014
and
M.P(MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014
B.Balakrishnan
S/o. Balaguru,
No.43, Mela Ponnagaram,
4th Street, Madurai – 16
Now at Canada
Represented by his Power of Attorney
N.Kuppusamy ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Inspector of Registration,
Registration Department,
Santhome, Chennai.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Arasaradi, Madurai.
3. S.Balaguru (died)
4. B.Lakshmi Ammal
5. B.Ravindran
6. B.Venkateswari
7. B.Vijayalakshmi
8. B.Shanthi
9. B.Usha .... Respondents
(R5 to R9 are substituted for the deceased
third respondent vide Court order
dated 20.12.2018 in M.P(MD) No.1 of 2015)
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.13543 of 2014
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records, relating to the registered impugned Revocation Deed dated
31.07.2013 vide Doc.No.2813 of 2013, on the file of the second respondent
executed by respondents 3 and 4 quash the same and consequently direct the
second respondent to remove the entries pursuant to the registration of
impugned Revocation Deed dated 31.07.2013, vide Doc No.2813 of 2013
on the file of the second respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi
For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.R.A. Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : (died)
For R8 : Mr.N.Tamil Mani
For R5 to R7 : No appearance
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the unilateral
cancellation of the settlement deed executed by the third and fourth
respondents in favour of the writ petitioner, on 29.10.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.13543 of 2014
2. A perusal of the settlement deed discloses that no power has been
reserved by the settlors for revoking the said document and no condition has
been imposed in the settlement deed. However, the third and fourth
respondents herein have unilaterally cancelled the document on 31.07.2013.
Pending Writ Petition, the third and fourth respondents has passed away and
the legal heirs have been impleaded as respondents 5 to 9.
3. The learned counsel for the eighth respondent contends that the
original settlement deed in favour of the writ petitioner itself is not valid.
4. In view of the judgment of the Honourable Full Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.6889 of 2020 etc., batch, dated 02.09.2022, (Sasikala –
vs- The Revenue Divisional Officer and others) the Registrar has no
jurisdiction, whatsoever to entertain a unilateral cancellation of the
settlement deed, especially, when there is no clause reserving power to the
settlor to cancel the said document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.13543 of 2014
5. In view of the above said observation, this Writ Petition stands
allowed. The second respondent is directed to delete the encumbrance
relating to Document No.2813 of 2013, dated 31.07.2013. However, the
respondents 5 to 9 are at liberty to approach the competent civil Court
challenging the said settlement deed, dated 29.10.2012 in favour of the writ
petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
12 .09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Inspector of Registration,
Registration Department,
Santhome, Chennai.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Arasaradi, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.13543 of 2014
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
W.P.(MD)No.13543 of 2014
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
