Madras High Court
C.Suriyakala vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 7 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD) No.30962 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD) No.30962 of 2023
C.Suriyakala ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road
Pattinapakkam
Chennai-600 028
2.The District Registrar
Registration Department
1st Street, Polpettai West
Thoothukudi
3.The Sub Registrar
Melur
Office at Integrated Building
1st Street, Polpettai West
Thoothukudi
4.V.Chelladurai
5.P.Mayilvel
6.N.Ponnlakshmi ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.30962 of 2023
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to declare the deed of
unilateral cancelled settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent on the
file of the third respondent in document bearing No.2064 of 2016 dated
11.07.2016 and as null and void and consequently direct the third respondent
to release the deed of settlement dated 01.10.2015 registered as document No.
3417 of 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2
R4 – Died
Tapal Due for R3, R5 & R6
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to declare the deed of unilateral
cancellation of the settlement deed dated 11.07.2016, registered as document
No.2064 of 2016, executed by the fourth respondent,as null and void and to
direct the third respondent to release the settlement deed forthwith.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Though notice has been sent to the respondents 4 to 6, the
notices were returned with endorsements “deceased”, “unclaimed” and “door
locked” respectively.
3. The petitioner is the daughter of the fourth respondent. The
fourth respondent is having three female children. The property comprised in
Survey No.557/1B in Plot No.26, to an extent of 5.51 Cents, situated at
Meelavittan Village, Thoothukudi District, was purchased by the fourth
respondent under a sale deed dated 06.02.2008 and registered as document
No.389 of 2008. Thereafter, he executed a settlement deed in favour of his
three daughters, including the petitioner herein, under a settlement deed
dated 01.10.2015 and registered as document No.3417 of 2015.
Subsequently, the daughters of the fourth respondent constructed a house in
the said property and were in enjoyment of the said property. In such
circumstances, the fourth respondent unilaterally cancelled the above
settlement deed, without the knowledge of the petitioner and her two sisters
under a cancellation deed dated 11.07.2016 and registered as document No.
2064 of 2016. Hence, this writ petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
5. The only point involved in this writ petition is whether the
unilateral cancellation deed can be sustained or not.
6. The above issue has already been decided by the Honourable
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sasikala vs. Revenue Divisional
Officer, reported in 2022 (4) LW 481, wherein in Paragraph No.44, it is 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 (2010) 15 SCC 207 and the Full
Bench of this Court in Latif Estate Line India Ltd., case, reported
in 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 (2022) 7 SCC 1 and the judgment of two
member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asset
Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., case, reported in 2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SCC On-line SC 544 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 of
conveyance which is duly executed by the transferor 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.”
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. As per the said decision, unilateral cancellation of sale deed or
a deed of conveyance is wholly void and not est and does not operate to
execute, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the property
and such unilateral cancellation of sale deed or deed of conveyance cannot be
accepted for registration. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the unilateral
cancellation deed executed by by the fourth respondent, dated 11.07.2016 and
registered as document No.2064 of 2016, on the file of the third respondent, is
hereby declared as null and void.
9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that after cancellation of
the settlement deed, the fourth respondent had executed a power of attorney
in favour of the fifth respondent, who inturn executed a sale deed in favour of
the sixth respondent, who is his wife. Therefore, in view of declaration of the
unilateral cancellation deed as null and void, the subsequent deeds executed
by the fourth respondent and the fifth respondents have also become void.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Though the mother of the petitioner and her sisters is alive,
they need not substitute their mother in place of the deceased fourth
respondent, since unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is bad in the eye
of law. Therefore, the question of substituting the wife of the deceased fourth
respondent in his place does not arise at all. No costs.
07.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai-600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
1st Street, Polpettai West,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Melur,
Office at Integrated Building,
1st Street, Polpettai West,
Thoothukudi.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
krk
07.11.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
