Madras High Court
J.Mariya Natchathiram vs The Inspector General Of ... on 13 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.2960 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.2960 of 2016
J.Mariya Natchathiram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Door No.100,
Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai-28.
2.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Manamadurai Registration Office,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
4.S.Arokiyam ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records pertaining to the unilateral cancellation of settlement
deed registered as Document No.2924/2012 dated 08.06.2012 on the file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.P(MD)No.2960 of 2016
of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently directing
the respondents No.1 to 3 to delete all entries with regard to Document
No.2924/2012 dated 08.06.2012 from all the departmental registers
maintained by them.
For Petitioner : Mr.Boopathy Pandian
For R1 – R3 : M/s.S.Jeyapriya
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging a registration
of unilateral cancellation deed by the third respondent herein.
2. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent herein,
namely her father has executed a registered settlement deed in her favour
on 20.02.2008 under Document No.392/2008.
3. A perusal of the said document discloses that the settlor has not
reserved any right to revoke the said document. No conditions have been
imposed in the said document. However, the fourth respondent has
chosen to unilaterally cancel the said settlement deed on 08.06.2012 in
Document No.2924/2012 on the file of the third respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2960 of 2016
4. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, by its judgment, dated
02.09.2022 in W.P(MD)Nos.6889,8330,13297 of 2020, 11674 of 2015
and W.A(MD)No.800 of 2022 has held that the Sub-Registrar has no
jurisdiction to entertain a deed, under which a settlement is unilaterally
cancelled, unless if falls under any one of the categories under Section
126 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the present case, as stated supra,
there are no conditions in the settlement deed and power to revoke the
document has not been reserved in view of the settlor.
5. In view of the above said facts, the third respondent ought not to
have received the document of unilateral cancellation of the settlement
deed and he should not have registered the said document.
6. In view of the above said legal position of law, this Writ
Petition stands allowed. This writ petition is being allowed only
considering the jurisdiction of the third respondent herein to entertain a
deed, under which a settlement is unilaterally cancelled. However, if the
fourth respondent or his legal heirs would like to challenge the original
settlement deed, dated 20.02.2008, they can do so before a competent
Civil Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2960 of 2016
7. With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands
allowed. No costs.
13.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Door No.100,
Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai-28.
2.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Manamadurai Registration Office,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2960 of 2016
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.2960 of 2016
Dated:
13.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
