Madras High Court
L.Kaalidhoss vs The Sub-Registrar on 12 August, 2024
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
W.A.No.110 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.110 of 2023
L.Kaalidhoss ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Royapuram,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.L.Muniyandi ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 16.08.2022 in W.P.No.28133 of 2016 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Surendranath
For R1 : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.K.A.Mariappan
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.110 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 16.08.2022, in W.P.No.28133 of 2016.
2.In the writ petition, the appellant's father questioned the legality of
registration of cancellation deed executed unilaterally by the 2nd respondent.
The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of
an order passed in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.33892 of 2012, etc.,
dated 06.04.2022. The facts in this case are not in dispute.
3.The 2nd respondent herein, along with one Mr.L.Mariappan,
executed a settlement deed, dated 05.05.2005, in favour of
Mr.A.Lakshmanan, the father of appellant, and the same was also registered
as Doc.No.1380 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Registrar's Office,
Royapuram. Subsequently, Mr.A.Lakshmanan settled the property in favour
of the appellant by a subsequent deed dated 11.05.2005. However, the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed which was dated
05.05.2005 by subsequent deed dated 22.05.2014 registered as
Doc.No.1551 of 2014. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant's father filed
the writ petition and the same was dismissed, against which, the present
Appeal is filed by the appellant.
4.A Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional
Officer-cum-Sub-Collector and another reported in 2002 (5) CTC 257 has
held that unilateral cancellation of settlement deed which is irrevocable and
which is not conditional, is void in law and that therefore, a writ petition is
also maintainable. The Full Bench has categorically distinguished the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2016 (10) SCC 767, where, it was
held that a writ petition challenging the legality of unilateral cancellation of a
document is not maintainable. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in Sasikala's case, this Court holds that the unilateral
cancellation of the settlement deed in this case, is impermissible in law.
Since the cancellation deed itself is void, registration of the same cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sustained. Therefore, the writ petition has to be allowed.
5.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the
learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.28133 of 2016, dated 16.08.2022, is
set aside. The writ petition in W.P.No.28133 of 2016 stands allowed. No
costs.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
12.08.2024
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Royapuram,
Chennai – 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
mkn
12.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
