Madras High Court
M.Srinivasan vs The District Registrar on 14 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.18100 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.18100 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2014
M.Srinivasan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Idalakudi,
Kanyakumari District.
3.A.Kasthuri ... Respondents
4.Rani Gomathy
5.M.Iyyappan ... Proposed Respondents
(Respondents 4 and 5 are impleaded vide Court order,
dated 09.11.2017 in W.M.P(MD)No.8961 of 2017 in
W.P(MD)No.18100 of 2014)
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.18100 of 2014
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the registration of the cancellation deed
registered in Document No.1947 of 2014, dated 08.07.2014, on the file
of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, void and against
the provision of Registration Act and consequently issue a direction to
the respondents 1 & 2 to delete such adverse encumbrances in the respect
of the schedule of properties and pass such further or other orders as this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For R-1 & R-2 : M/s.S.Jeyapriya
Government Advocate
For R-2 & R-3 : No appearance
For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.K.Sathya Singh
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the
registration of a unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed in Document
No.1946 of 2014 (Erroneously mentioned as Document No.1947 of 2014
in the writ affidavit). The third respondent is the owner of the property
and she has executed a registered settlement deed in favour of her son,
namely, the writ petitioner on 03.10.2012 in Document No.3283 of 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.18100 of 2014
A perusal of the said document indicates that the third respondent has not
reserved any right to revoke the said settlement deed. There are no
conditions imposed upon the writ petitioner in the said settlement deed
by the third respondent herein. However, she has chosen to cancel the
said settlement deed on 08.07.2014 in Document No.1946 of 2014 on the
file of the second respondent herein. The said document is a unilateral
cancellation of the settlement deed.
2. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court
in W.P(MD)Nos.6889, 8330, 13297 of 2020, 11674 of 2015 and
W.A(MD)No.800 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.6797 of 2022, dated
02.09.2022, Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain a unilateral
cancellation of the settlement deed, unless the ingredients under Section
126 of the Transfer of Property Act are satisfied. In the present case, a
perusal of the original settlement deed, dated 03.10.2012, indicates that
the settlor has not reserved any right to revoke the document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.18100 of 2014
3. In view of the above said fact, the writ petition stands allowed.
However, the respondents 4 and 5 are at liberty to approach the civil
Court, if they are so advised, challenging the said settlement deed, dated
03.10.2012. The second respondent is directed to delete the entry relating
to Document No.1946 of 2014, dated 08.07.2014. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand
allowed.
14.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
btr
To
1.The District Registrar,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Idalakudi,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.18100 of 2014
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
btr
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.18100 of 2014
14.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
