Madras High Court
N.Naveen Kaarthik vs The Inspector General Of ... on 4 July, 2023
1 W.P.(MD)NO.18730 OF 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.18730 of 2014
N.Naveen Kaarthik ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.120, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 0028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar's Office,
Vathalagundu,
Dindigul District.
3. N.Rani ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for
the records of the 2nd respondent in document No.3382 of
2014 (Cancellation deed) dated 07.10.2014, quash the same
and grant such other reliefs.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Vamsidhar
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.SR.A.Ramachandran,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-3 : No appearance.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
2 W.P.(MD)NO.18730 OF 2014
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
2. Though the third respondent has been served and her
name is also printed in the cause list, she has not chosen to
enter appearance.
3. The petitioner is none other than the son of the third
respondent. The third respondent had purchased the
petition-mentioned property vide sale deed dated 06.02.2008.
She settled the said property in favour of the petitioner on
11.07.2014 under the registered document (document
No.2336 /2014) on the file of the second respondent. The said
document was unilaterally cancelled by the third respondent
on 07.10.2014. The second respondent registered the deed of
cancellation vide document No.3382 /2014. To nullify the
registration of the deed of cancellation, the present writ
petition came to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 W.P.(MD)NO.18730 OF 2014
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition and called upon this Court and to
grant relief as prayed for.
5. The official respondents have not filed any counter
affidavit. As rightly noted, the third respondent had not
entered appearance through counsel.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
draws my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench
reported in AIR 2011 Mad 66 (Latif Estate Line India Ltd.
and Ors. Vs. Hadeeja Ammal and Ors). The Hon'ble Full
Bench has held as follows:-
“ 59. After giving our anxious consideration
on the questions raised in the instant case, we
come to the following conclusion:
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 W.P.(MD)NO.18730 OF 2014
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 transferrer 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 favor 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-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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 W.P.(MD)NO.18730 OF 2014
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.”
The aforesaid decision has been relied on by another Full
Bench of Madras High Court in the decision reported in 2022
(5) CTC 257 (Sasikala Vs. The Revenue Divisional
Officer). The Hon'ble Full Bench has held 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 MANU/SC/1267/2010 :
(2010) 15 SCC 207 and the Full Bench of this
Court in Latif Estate Line India Ltd., case, reported
in MANU/TN/0310/2011 : 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 MANU/SC/0615/2022 : (2022) 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 W.P.(MD)NO.18730 OF 2014
SCC 1 and the judgment of two member Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Ltd., case, reported in
MANU/SC/0579/2022 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.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 W.P.(MD)NO.18730 OF 2014
of conveyance which is duly executed by the
transferrer 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 power
of Attorney deed which are revocable and not
coupled with interest.”
7. The second respondent thus has no jurisdiction to
register the deed of unilateral cancellation. The impugned
registration is set aside as null and void. This writ petition
stands allowed. No costs.
04.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 W.P.(MD)NO.18730 OF 2014
NCS : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PMU
To:
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.120, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 0028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar's Office,
Vathalagundu,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 W.P.(MD)NO.18730 OF 2014
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
W.P.(MD)No.18730 of 2014
04.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
