Madras High Court
Vigneshwar vs The Sub-Registrar on 31 August, 2023
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
and
W.M.P.Nos.29893 & 29894 of 2016
Vigneshwar ...Petitioner
[Cause title amended vide order dated
22.11.2022 made in WMP.No.30627/2022.
Petitioner attained majority and his
next friend discharged]
Vs
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of Sub-Registrar, Panrutti,
Cuddalore District.
2.R.Ravendran
3.Balaji ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
vide Cancellation Deed dated 27.06.2016 registered as Document NO.1564
of 2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
For R1 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.S.Balasubramanian
For R3 : Mr.V.Srikanth
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the unilateral
cancellation of settlement deed made in cancellation deed dated 27.06.2016
registered as Document No.1564 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent.
2.The petitioner states that a settlement deed in favour of the
petitioner was executed on 03.12.2012 by the second respondent Late
R.Ravendran. The deceased second respondent is the elder brother of the
father of the writ petitioner and he executed a settlement deed in favour of
the writ petitioner out of love and affection. The said settlement deed dated
03.12.2012 was cancelled by the deceased second respondent unilaterally by
seeking a cancellation deed on 27.06.2016 in Document No.1564 of 2016
on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Panrutti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is impermissible and the issues are
settled by this Court.
4.The learned counsel for the third respondent raised an objection by
stating that the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.63 of
2021 on the file of the Additional District Court, Villupuram and the said
suit is pending. The suit was instituted for declaration and permanent
injunction. It is contended that the issues raised is to be adjudicated before
the civil court and therefore, the writ petition is to be rejected.
5.As far as the principle governing the unilateral cancellation of
settlement deed, the issues are no more res integra and two Hon’ble Full
Bench of this Court have considered and held that such unilateral
cancellation is impermissible and there is no provision under the
Registration Act to cancel the settlement deeds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
6.The Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Latif Estate Line
India Ltd. Vs. Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 has
settled principles as follows:
“(i) A deed of cancellation of a sale unilaterally
executed by the transferor does not create, assign,
limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the
property and is of no effect. Such a document does
not create any encumbrance in the property already
transferred. Hence such a deed of cancellation cannot
be accepted for registration.
(ii) Once title to the property is vested in the
transferee by the sale of the property, it cannot be
divested unto the transferor by execution and
registration of a deed of cancellation even with the
consent of the parties. The proper course would be to
re-convey the property by a deed of conveyance by
the transferee in favour of the transferor.
(iii) Where a transfer is effected by way of sale with
the condition that title will pass on payment of
consideration, and such intention is clear from the
recital in the deed, then such instrument or sale can
be cancelled by a deed of cancellation with the
consent of both the parties on the ground of non-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
payment of consideration. The reason is that in such
a sale deed, admittedly, the title remained with the
transferor.
(iv) In other cases, a complete and absolute sale can
be cancelled at the instance of the transferor only by
taking recourse to the Civil Court by obtaining a
decree of cancellation of sale deed on the ground
inter alia of fraud or any other valid reasons.”
7.The legal position was further confirmed by the subsequent Full
Bench Judgment in the case of Sasikala vs. The Revenue Divisional
Officer, cum Sub Collector, Devakottai and Others reported in (2022) 7
MLJ 1. The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:
“54. The third step namely the act of
registration, is something that the Registering
Authority is called upon to do statutorily. While the
executant of the document and the person claiming
under the document (claimant) are the only actors
involved in the first two steps, the Registering Officer
is the actor in the third step. Apart from the third step
which is wholly in the domain of the Registering
Authority, he may also have a role to play in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
second step when a document is presented for
registration and the execution thereof is admitted. The
role that is assigned to the Registrar in the second
step is that of verification of the identity of the person
presenting the document for registration.
55. Thus, the first two steps in the process of
registration are substantial in nature, with the parties
to the document playing the role of the lead actors
and the Registering Authority playing a guest role in
the second step. The third step is procedural in nature
where the Registering Authority is the lead actor....
59. Much ado was sought to be made by
contending that the Appellant approached the High
Court without disclosing the previous orders of the
High Court and this Court, relegating them to civil
court for the adjudication of their claim. Reliance was
also placed in this regard on the decision of this
Court in Raj Kumar Soni vs. State of U.P. (2007) 10
SCC 635.”
8.Therefore, the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition
to quash the cancellation deed is to be considered. However, the civil rights
between the parties, if any reminds in the civil suit is to be adjudicated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
before the civil court in the manner contemplated. The parties are at liberty
to adjudicate other issues involved in the civil suit. As far as the unilateral
cancellation of settlement deed is concerned, the present writ petition is to
be allowed.
9.Accordingly, the cancellation deed dated 27.06.2016 registered as
Document No.1564 of 2016 is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
31.08.2023
cse
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Office of Sub-Registrar, Panrutti,
Cuddalore District.
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
cse
W.P.No.34704 of 2016
31.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
