Madras High Court
Abdul Rafiq vs The District Registrar on 24 January, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P (MD).No.21792 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P (MD).No.21792 of 2024
Abdul Rafiq ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Registrar,
O/o.The District Registrar,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.The Sub Registrar Office,
Karuthattangudi,
Thanjavur District.
3.M.G.Mahaboob Hussain ...Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the partition deed of cancellation dated
13.01.2006 executed by the third respondent and registered on the file of the
second respondent as document No.94 of 2006 as null and void within the
period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.D.Nallathambi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P (MD).No.21792 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the unilateral
cancellation of partition deed dated 13.01.2006 registered vide document No.94
of 2006.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
3. The property, which was subjected in the partition deed registered
dated 06.12.1996, was purchased jointly in the name of the petitioner's mother
from the income of all the sons. Therefore, the said properties were partitioned
by the registered partition deed dated 06.12.1996. As per the partition deed, no
properties have been allotted to the petitioner's sister since the properties have
been purchased from the income of the sons. Accordingly, 'A' schedule
property was allotted in favour of the petitioner and 'B' schedule property was
allotted in favour of the third respondent. While enjoying the said property, his
mother and third respondent were interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to
file a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.341 of 2007 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Thanjavur against the petitioner's mother and the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on
20.02.2019. Even at the time of filing the written statement in the said suit, the
third respondent had no where mentioned about the cancellation of partition
deed vide document No.94 of 2006 dated 13.01.2006. In fact, thereafter, the
petitioner also filed another suit in O.S.No.462 of 2010 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Thanjavur as against the Thanjavur
Corporation for the relief of bare injunction restraining the authorities
concerned from changing the house tax and and water tax to others name
without consent from the petitioner. The suit was also decreed in favour of the
petitioner by the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2022. Admittedly, the third
respondent and his mother had executed the unilateral cancellation of partition
dated 06.12.1996 and the same was cancelled on 13.01.2006 without giving any
notice to the petitioner. The unilateral cancellation of deed was already dealt
with by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.6889 of 2020
etc., batch held as follows:-
“39.No transfer can be made in so far as it is opposed
to the nature of interest affected thereby or for an unlawful object
as per Section 6 of Transfer of Property Act. Only a person
competent to contract and has a transferable right is competent
to transfer such property. “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in
exchange for a price paid or promised. In case of immovable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property of the value of one hundred rupees and more, it can be
made only by a registered instrument. Once a transfer is made by
a registered instrument all the interest which the transferor is
then capable of passing in the property is passed on forthwith to
the transferee. After a deed of conveyance, the transferor has no
transferable interest. The Transfer of Property Act does not
permit the transferor to recall an instrument so as to divest the
transferee's title. The Registration Act does not deal with
unilateral cancellation of a sale deed . The Registration Act does
not confer any power to registrar to cancel a document which
had been registered as per the Act. By registration a legal
sanctity is given to the conveyance. When the object of
Registration is to ensure public to rely with confidence upon the
statements contained is the registers maintained in the Registrar's
office as a full and complete account of all transaction affecting
title, permitting registrars to accept unilateral cancellation of
sale deed or any other deed of conveyance (except revocation of
gift as may be permitted in accordance with Section 126 of
Transfer of Property Act or a Will) will be opposed to the object
and purpose of Registration Act itself and contrary to the
provision of Transfer of property Act. A person, after conveying
all his right by a deed of conveyance, has no right to deal with the
property again affecting, limiting or extinguishing the right or
title of transfer for no consideration. When such deed of
cancellation is presented, the deed of conveyance which had been
registered earlier is referred to. It is not as if the registrar needs
to prove further to find out whether the person executing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
document has title. When a deed of cancellation is presented, the
incompetency to transfer is admitted by the executant. The
intention of the person presenting a document cancelling the
registered document is fraudulent and the fraud is accomplished,
when such document is registered. Registering Officer has power
to refuse to register a document. A person may file an appeal
before Registrar against an order refusing to register, except on
the ground of denial of execution. Similarly, if the Sub-Registrar
refuses to register on the ground of denial of execution, a person
claiming under the document can apply to the Registrar to
establish his right to have the document registered. After
accepting the document for registration and registering the
document, the Registrar has no power under the Registration Act
to cancel the Registration. If a document cancelling the registered
deed is accepted for registration by the registering authority, he
intends to do something which he is not authorised under the Act
and it is beyond his power under the Registration Act.
40.Hence, we have no hesitation to answer the issue by
holding that the Sub-Registrar namely, the Registering Authority
has no power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify the deed
of conveyance made earlier.”
4. Therefore, thus it is clear that the unilateral cancellation of deed
without notice to the petitioner and without consent of the party is clear
violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the unilateral cancellation
of deed cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the cancellation of
partition deed dated 13.01.2006 is declared as null and void. No costs.
However, the third respondent is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for
appropriate relief.
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No 24.01.2025
Speaking/Non Speaking order
am
To
1.The District Registrar,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Karuthattangudi,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
am
24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
