Madras High Court
T.Chandrasekar vs The District Registrar on 19 February, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.16344 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.16344 of 2020
T.Chandrasekar,
No.91, Ottavadai Street,
Koadambakkam,
Chennai – 600 024
Rep. By his Power Agent S.Vijaya Mohan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Chengulpattu Registration District,
Chengulpattu.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sriperumbundur Sub-Registration Office,
Kancheepuram District.
3.M A Abudul Khadar
4.Badrudin Nisha .. Respondents
(R4 impleaded vide order dated 23.09.2021
made in W.M.P.No.20721 of 2021 in W.P.
No.16344 of 2020)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declare that cancellation deed
dated 18.02.1997 vide document No.812 of 1997 on the file of 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.16344 of 2020
respondent is not binding of the petitioner in view of the finding of the
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court dated 11.02.2011 in a batch of cases in
W.A.No.592 of 2009.
For petitioner : Mr.B.Manoharan
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.U.Baranidharan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition pertains
to the registration of the cancellation deed dated 18.02.1997, registered
as document No.812 of 1997 on the file of the 2 nd respondent, whereby
the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner dated 29.04.1994 was
canceled unilaterally.
2.The petitioner purchased the subject property through registered
sale deed dated 29.04.1994. Thereafter, the revenue records was also
mutated and patta was issued in the name of the petitioner. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent without any notice,
created a cancellation deed and presented it for registration before the 2nd
respondent and the 2nd respondent entertained this document and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
unilaterally canceled the sale deed which stood in the name of the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been
filed before this Court.
3.The issue that is involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Latif Estate Line India Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director VS.
Hadeeja Ammal and others reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1. The Full Bench
of this Court after considering the entire law on the issue, 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
property and is of no effect. Such
a document does not create any
encumbrance in the property
already transferred. Hence, such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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-payment of consideration.
The reason is that in such a Sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
4.In the light of the above discussion, the cancellation deed that
was entertained by the 2nd respondent whereby the sale deed executed in
favour of the petitioner was unilaterally canceled is unsustainable and the
relief sought for by the petitioner is granted and accordingly, this Writ
Petition stands allowed. No costs.
19.02.2025
(½)
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk
To
1.The District Registrar,
Chengulpattu Registration District,
Chengulpattu.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sriperumbundur Sub-Registration Office,
Kancheepuram District.
19.02.2025
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
