Madras High Court
G.Geetha Ramani vs Sirajudeen on 30 June, 2025
S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.3730 of 2018, 6379, 7182 and 7186 of 2020, 1726 of 2022
and 4512 of 2025
G.Geetha Ramani ... Appellant
vs
1.Sirajudeen
2.Basheer Ahamed
Venkatraman (Died)
3.Eswaran
4.Rajam
5.Uma
6.Abirami ...Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 07.02.2018 made in
A.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court,
Dindigul confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.2003 made in
O.S.No.487 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court,
Dindigul.
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
For Appellant :Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
For R1 and R2 :Mr.M.Saravanan
R3 to R6 :Given up
*****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is on appeal before this Court. The Second Appeal is
filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 07.02.2018, made in
A.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court,
Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.2003, passed in
O.S.No.487 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court,
Dindigul.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their
litiagative status before the trial Court.
3.According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property originally
belonged to one Venkatasubbaiyar, through a sale deed, dated 30.10.1887,
in Ex.A1. It is further case of the plaintiff that the said Venkatasubbaiyar
died on 17.02.1971 leaving behind his son, Venkatraman, the third
defendant and his grandson, Eswaran, the fourth defendant. Pursuant to his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
death, the third and fourth defendants, who are the son and grandson,
inherited the property and were in absolute possession and enjoyment.
4.It is the further case of the plaintiff that the third and fourth
defendants executed a sale deed on 07.02.2002 in favour of the plaintiff for
a total sale consideration of Rs.3,70,000/-. Even though the sale deed has
been executed, the document has not been released in view of the reference
made towards valuation of the property. It is also the further case of the
plaintiff that the Sub Registrar concerned had issued a notice on 13.08.2002
for inspection and pursuant to which, the plaintiff had also paid the deficit
stamp duty on 23.10.2002. In the meantime, since the defendants 1 and 2
illegally attempted to trespass into the suit property and interfere with the
possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has come up with the suit for
permanent injunction.
5.The defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit by filing a written statement
disputing the claim made by the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the
defendants 1 and 2 that the suit is a collusive proceedings undertaken by the
plaintiff and his alleged vendor and further, the sale deed relied on by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
plaintiff is a fabricated and forged document. It is also the further case of
the defendants 1 and 2 that the plaintiff is not the bona fide purchaser for
value. In a sense, the defendants 1 and 2 have disputed the title of the
plaintiff and have claimed title to the suit property.
6.It is the further case of the defendants 1 and 2 that the plaintiff's
vendor had already sold the property bearing Plot Nos.14-A and 14-B in
favour of the first and second defendants through two separate sale deeds,
both dated 03.05.1993, for valuable consideration. It is their further case
that on the date of purchase, the defendants 1 and 2 have been put in
possession of the suit property. Further, Plot No.14-C and Plot No.13 were
sold by the vendor, the defendants 3 and 4, in favour of the sister of the
defendants 1 and 2, Shameem Banu. The defendants 1 and 2 have averred
that they have put up a compound wall enclosing all the three plots bearing
Plot Nos.14-A, 14-B and 14-C and they have been in possession of the suit
property and based on which, patta has been issued in their favour in Patta
Nos.84 and 97.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
7.The defendants 1 and 2 further alleged that their vendors, the third
defendant, in order to cheat and defraud the defendants 1 and 2, mala fidely,
had went ahead and executed documents, dated 21.02.2000 cancelling the
sale deeds in favour of the defendants 1 and 2, which are void documents,
which came to the knowledge of the first defendant and immediately, he
issued a legal notice to the third defendant on 16.09.2003. Since the
cancellation is a void document, the collusive and fabricated document
created by the third defendant and the plaintiff does not create any right in
his favour, much less they have any valid title to the suit property and
therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff cannot be sustained and sought for
dismissal of the suit.
8.During trial, the plaintiff examined one Gopal as PW-1 and marked
Ex-A1 to Ex-A12. On the side of the defendants, DW-1 and DW-2 were
examined and Ex-B1 to Ex-B17 were marked.
9.The trial Court, after analysing the evidences and documents, found
that when it is admitted by both the parties that originally the suit property
belonged to one Venkatasubbaiayar, which came to the hands of the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
and fourth defendants and further, when already the suit property had been
sold by the third defendant in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 through two
sale deeds, the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff
relying on a cancellation of sale deeds executed in Ex-B3 and Ex-B4 cannot
be sustained, as the registered sale deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled,
except by filing a civil suit to set aside the sale. The trial Court found that
when the defendants 1 and 2 have categorically disputed the title and raised
a cloud, the plaintiff has not sought for the relief of declaration of title and
further, the plaintiff has not filed any document to establish his possession
over the suit property. Finding so, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
10.On appeal, the lower appellate Court, by placing reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, came to the conclusion
that any document unilaterally cancelling the sale deed is null and void and
further, the document relied on by the plaintiff executed by the alleged
vendor placing reliance on the unilateral cancellation deed will not give any
right in favour of the plaintiff and had ultimately, dismissed the appeal
confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Assailing the
concurrent finding on fact, the plaintiff is before this Court on appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
11.This Court, by order, dated 08.06.2018, admitted the Second
Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
“(a).Whether the Courts below can go into the question of the
legality and validity of the cancellation of the title deed of the
respondents/defendants 1 and 2 by the respondents 3 and 4 in the
suit for bare injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff?
(b).When the rejection of the amendment of the suit relief for
declaratory relief in addition to the original relief of bare injunction
especially when the pendency of the instant proceedings denied the
title of the appellant/plaintiff and the said rejection order having
been challenged and pending before this Hon'ble Court in C.R.P.
(MD).No.2676 of 2014, the lower Appellate Court came to find that
without the relief of declaratory relief the suit for bare injunction is
not maintainable or is in proper?
(c).When the Courts below can go beyond the scope of the
suit without any issues being framed decide the title of the suit
property in favour of the respondents/defendants by holding that the
cancellation of title deed by the vendor of the respondents 1 and 2?
(d).Whether the pendency of release of title deed documents
of the appellant / plaintiff by the registration authorities for
adjudication of the stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act proceedings title can be passed to the purchaser namely
appellant / plaintiff?
(e).Whether the procedure adopted by the lower appellate
Court is correct especially when the appellant/plaintiff produced
additional evidence including the original title deed after release by
the Registration Department when pending the appeal suit and filed
I.A.No.132 of 2013 and by rejecting the same along with the main
appeal suit and finds that the non production of original title deed,
the appellant / plaintiff lost the title to the suit property and
negatived the claim?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
12.Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
argued that when the plaintiff had purchased the suit property through
registered sale deed and the copy of the sale deed has also been marked in
the suit in Ex-A4, inspection notice and other documents by which, the
deficit stamp duty was paid, were also marked as Ex-A5 to Ex-A7, the
plaintiff had established his title to the suit property. It is his further
contention that when the plaintiff is having a valid title based on the title
document, he had come up with the suit for bare injunction and unless, the
defendants 1 and 2 raise a valid cloud on the title of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff is not required to seek for a declaration. The learned Counsel
further vehemently contended that, a mere claim by the defendants 1 and 2
disputing the title will not amount to create a cloud, but on the contrary, the
defendants 1 and 2, by valid document, has to establish their right and only
if a genuine cloud is raised, then the plaintiff is bound to seek for a
declaration. It is the further vehement contention of the learned Counsel
that when once the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2
have been cancelled and the vendor having executed a sale deed for
valuable sale consideration in favour of the plaintiff, by relying on such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
documents in Ex-B1 and Ex-B2, it cannot be construed that the defendants 1
and 2 have raised a cloud on the title of the plaintiff.
13.It is the further contention of the learned Counsel that since the
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was released thereafter, the plaintiff filed
an application before the lower appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC to receive additional documents by filing original sale deed returned to
the plaintiff after registration. It is his further submission that since the same
was rejected, he had approached this Court and filed a Civil Revision
Petition, where, this Court had permitted the plaintiff to raise all these
points during the final hearing of the appeal suit.
14.The learned Counsel further by pointing out the substantial
questions of law framed in this appeal made submission that the Courts
below had, in the suit for bare injunction, erroneously gone into the question
of title and further, when the document was pending adjudication before the
registering authority, the plaintiff is entitled to file the document before the
Court, which would be required for the plaintiff to substantiate his claim.
The Courts below have not appreciated the documents filed by the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
in a proper perspective and also had erroneously rejected the applications
filed for receipt of additional documents along with the appeal, which are
perverse and sought for interference of this Court.
15.Since there are also several Civil Miscellaneous Petitions
including the one filed for receiving additional documents in the appeal, the
learned Counsel also made submissions in this regard.
16.Per contra, Mr.M.Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 contended that when the defendants 1 and 2 have
purchased the suit property as early as in the year 1993 and they have a
valid title, any document unilaterally cancelling the sale deed is null and
void. The alleged sale deed executed by the vendor of the defendants 1 and
2 selling the same suit property in favour of the plaintiff is also void and the
plaintiff will not get any right in view of such a document created and the
suit and the documents are all collusive and fabricated in order to defraud
and usurp the property of the defendants 1 and 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
17.The learned Counsel further contended that when the plaintiff had
come up with the suit for bare injunction and the defendants 1 and 2 have
filed a detailed written statement denying the title of the plaintiff over the
suit property and they have raised a cloud over the plaintiff's title, the
plaintiff failed to seek for a declaration and the suit for bare injunction
without seeking for declaration, when there is a cloud on the title, is not
maintainable, in view of the settled proposition of the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
18.It is the further contention that when the plaintiff had come up
with the suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff was also not able to
establish that he was in possession of the suit property and therefore, the
Courts below placing reliance on the evidences and documents have rightly
dismissed the suit, which requires no interference and sought for dismissal
of the appeal.
19.Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
20.Admittedly, the suit property originally belonged to one
Venkatasubbaiyar. He became the absolute owner of the property through
purchase by a sale deed registered on 30.10.1887 in Ex-A1. It is also further
admitted that Venkatasubbaiyar died on 17.02.1971 and pursuant to which,
the third and the fourth defendants, who are the son and grandson of
Venkatasubbaiyar, had inherited the suit property and became the absolute
owners. As such, it is an admitted case on both sides that the third
defendant and his son the fourth defendant, after the demise of
Venkatasubbaiyar, became the absolute owners of the suit property.
21.At this juncture, the plaintiff had come up with the suit for bare
injunction by placing right through a sale deed alleged to have been
executed by the third defendant in his favour on 07.02.2002. It is the case
of the plaintiff that even though the sale deed has been registered in his
favour, since there was a difference in valuation, the document was not
released and pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Sub Registrar
concerned, the deficit stamp duty was paid and thereafter, the document was
released. To evidence the same, the plaintiff had filed documents in Ex-A5
to Ex-A7 by which, the inspection notice was issued and the deficit stamp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
duty was paid. Further, the document in Ex-A4, which is the copy of the
sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff has been marked. The plaintiff
placed his right over this document and contended that he had purchased the
suit property from the third and fourth defendants and therefore, based on
which, he is in possession of the suit property and therefore, claims a decree
for permanent injunction.
22.On the contrary, the defendants 1 and 2 admitted that the third and
fourth defendants became the owner of the suit property after the demise of
Venkatasubbaiyar and the third defendant had already sold the property
bearing Plot No.14A in favour of the first defendant through a sale deed,
dated 03.05.1993 and also sold the plot bearing Plot No.14B in favour of the
second defendant through a sale deed, dated 03.05.1993 in Ex-B2. It is the
further case of the defendants 1 and 2 that apart from the suit property, the
Plot No.14-C and also Plot No.13 have been sold in favour of the sister of
the defendants 1 and 2 on the same day, ie., 03.05.1993. Based on the sale
deeds executed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 in Ex-B1 and Ex-B2,
they have been put in possession of the suit property and they are in
possession and enjoyment. It is the further claim of the defendants 1 and 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
that based on their possession, patta has been mutated in their favour
through patta Nos.84 and 97 in Ex-B7 and Ex-B8 and also they have filed
the town survey registers issued in their favour in Ex-B9 and Ex-B10.
23.It is to be noted that when the defendants 3 and 4 had already sold
the suit property in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 through Ex-B1 and Ex-
B2 as early as on 03.05.1993, they have no further right to create a further
sale deed in respect of the same suit property in favour of the plaintiff. At
this juncture, it is also to be noted that the third defendant had went ahead
and executed an unilateral cancellation of sale deed through two documents,
dated 21.02.2000 in Ex-B3 and Ex-B4 cancelling the two sale deeds
executed in favour of the first and second defendants in Ex-B1 and Ex-B2.
By placing reliance on these two unilateral cancellation of sale deeds in Ex-
B3 and Ex-B4, the third defendant seems to have gone ahead and executed a
further sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in Ex-A4.
24.Now, it is to be seen as to whether the third defendant has any
power to unilaterally execute a cancellation of sale deed and whether any
such execution of the document is valid, as per law and further, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
executing such documents in Ex-B3 and Ex-B4, whether the third defendant
will have any right to execute a further sale in respect of the same property
in favour of the plaintiff. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the decision
of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in M/s.Latif Estate Line India vs
Hadeeja Ammal and others, reported in 2011-1-L.W.673. The Hon'ble
Full Bench of this Court went into the issue and held that any deed of
cancellation of sale unilaterally executed by the transferor does not create,
assign 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. In effect, the Hon'ble Full Bench held that such a
document is null and void. Paragraph Nos.52 to 59 of the said decision are
extracted hereunder for ease reference :
“52. Now the question that falls for consideration is as to
whether once a sale is made absolute by transfer of ownership of the
property from the vendor to the purchaser, such transfer can be
annulled or cancelled by the vendor by executing a deed of
cancellation. This question came up for consideration before the
four Judges of the Privy Council (Viscount Haldane, Lord
Phillimore, Sir John Edge and Sir Robert Stout) in Md. Ihtishan
Ali v. Jamna Prasad reported in AIR 1922 Privy Council 56. The
fact of that case was that one Ehsan Ali Khan, being in possession of
a bazaar called Ehsaganj mortgaged it to one Sheo Prasad by a
mortgage deed dated 9th November, 1873 and further encumbered it
with charges in favour of the mortgagee. In the year 1882, the said
Ehsan Ali sold the property, subject to the mortgage and charges to
the appellant's predecessors in title. Dispute arose with regard to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
the devolution of interest, and said Ehsan Ali cancelled the deed and
retained his interest and that he, in fact, dealt with it subsequently by
further charges in favour of the mortgagee and by professing to sell
it over again to Wasi-uz-Zaman. While deciding the issue, His
Lordship Lord Phillimore, speaking for the Bench, observed and
held as under:— (page 58)
“While making these comments, their Lordships reserve their
opinion as to the value of a defence founded upon such a transaction
as the defendants set up. Certainly in law, no title would pass under
it, for immovable property of this value can only be transferred by a
registered deed, and when a deed of sale has been once executed
and registered, it can only be avoided by a subsequent registered
transfer. Whether in some form of suit (not this one) between some
parties any equitable relief could be got out of such a transaction, it
is unnecessary to pronounce, for in their Lordships' opinion it was
not proved.
As to the alleged subsequent dealings by Ehsan Ali Khan with
the property, they could not, if regarded as declarations in his own
favour, be received in evidence on behalf of those claiming under
him, any more than they could be received if he were himself the
defendant. They could not be regarded as acts of ownership so as to
prove adverse possession, because he never was in possession, the
possession remaining in the mortgagee.”
53. A similar question came up for consideration before the
Orissa High Court in the case of Michhu Kuanr v. Raghu
Jena reported in AIR 1961 Orissa 19, as to the effect of cancellation
of sale deed by the vendor on the allegation that consideration
amount was not paid. While considering the question the Bench
observed:—
“The question of intention could only arise if no consideration
passed in the context of this back ground and the surrounding
circumstances the subsequent deed of cancellation is irrelevant.
Once by the registered sale deed Ex. 1 title had passed to the
vendees, the subsequent deed of cancellation Ex. A certainly could
not nullify the effect of the already completed sale deed Ex. 1.”
54. There is no provision in the Transfer of Property Act or in
the Registration Act, which deals with the cancellation of deed of
sale. The reason according to us is that the execution of a deed of
cancellation by the vendor does not create, assign, limit or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
extinguish any right, title or interest in the immovable property and
the same has no effect in the eye of law. A provision relating to the
cancellation of a document is provided in Section 31 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 (Old Section - 39). Section 31 reads as under:—
“31. When cancellation may be ordered : - (1) Any person
against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has
reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding,
may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or
voidable, and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and
order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy
of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so
registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument
contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.”
55. From the reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest
that three conditions are requisite for the exercise of jurisdiction to
cancel an instrument ie.,
(1) An instrument is avoidable against the plaintiff;
(2) The plaintiff may reasonably apprehend serious injury by the
instrument being left or outstanding; and
(3) In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers it
proper to grant this relief of preventive justice.
56. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case
of Muppudathi Pillai v. Krishnaswami Pillai, AIR 1960 Madras 1
elaborately discussed the provision of Section 39 (New Section 31)
and held:—
“12. The principle is that such document though not necessary
to be set aside may, if left outstanding, be a source of potential
mischief. The jurisdiction under Section 39 is, therefore, a protective
or a preventive one. It is not confined to a case of fraud, mistake,
undue influence, etc. and as it has been stated it was to prevent a
document to remain as a menace and danger to the party against
whom under different circumstances it might have operated. A party
against whom a claim under a document might be made is not bound
to wait till the document is used against him. If that were so he might
be in a disadvantageous position if the impugned document is sought
to be used after the evidence attending its execution has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
disappeared. Section 39 embodies the principle by which he is
allowed to anticipate the danger and institute a suit to cancel the
document and to deliver it up to him. The principle of the relief is the
same as in quia timet actions.”
57. There is no dispute that a third party can claim title to the
property against the purchaser who purchased the property for
valuable consideration and came into possession of the same. But it
is the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to give such declaration
in favour of the third party or a stranger.
58. It can also not be overlooked or ignored that a unilateral
cancellation of a sale deed by registered instrument at the instance
of the vendor only encourages fraud and is against public policy.
But there are circumstances where a deed of cancellation presented
by both the vendor and the purchaser for registration has to be
accepted by the Registrar if other mandatory requirements are
complied with. Hence, the vendor by the unilateral execution of the
cancellation deed cannot annul a registered document duly executed
by him as such an act of the vendor is opposed to public policy.
59. After giving our anxious consideration on the questions
raised in the instant case, we come to the following conclusion:—
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 a deed of cancellation cannot be accepted for
registration.
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
is that in such a sale deed, admittedly, the title remained with the
transferor.
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.
25.Further, again, a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Sasikala vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub Collector, Devakottai and
another, reported in 2022 (5) CTC 257, held that a sale deed or a deed of
conveyance, which is executed and registered, cannot be unilaterally
cancelled and such an unilateral cancellation of sale deed is wholly void and
non est and does not operate to execute, assign, limit or extinguish any right
or interest in the property. Paragraph Nos.44 and 45 of the said decision are
extracted hereunder for ease reference:
“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.-vsGovernment 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
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.
45.As a result of our forgoing conclusions, we answer the
reference by holding that the Registrar has no power to accept the
deed of cancellation to nullify the deed of conveyance made earlier,
when the deed of conveyance has already been acted upon by the
transferee. Since anyone may try to mislead or misinterpret our
judgment by referring to the question of reference we insist that our
answer to the reference should be understood in the light of our
conclusions summarised in the previous paragraph.”
26.From the above two decisions of the Hon'ble Full Bench, it is clear
that any unilateral cancellation of sale deed executed by a transferor is
invalid and such a document executed is null and void and does not create
or limit any interest or title created over the property in favour of the
transferee. In view of the said decisions, the unilateral cancellation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
sale deeds alleged to have been executed by the third defendant in Ex-B3
and Ex-B4 cancelling the two sale deeds executed in favour of the
defendants 1 and 2 in Ex-B1 and Ex-B2 are null and void and in view of
such a cancellation in Ex-B3 and Ex-B4, the right created in favour of the
defendants 1 and 2 through Ex-B1 and Ex-B2 does not limit or their title is
not affected in any manner.
27.In view of the sale deeds executed in favour of the first and second
defendants in Ex-B1 and Ex-B2, they are the absolute owners of the suit
property and unilateral cancellation of sale deeds in Ex-B3 and Ex-B4 does
not dent or take away any right of the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit property
and the third defendant does not have any right to execute a further sale
deed in respect of the same property in favour of the plaintiff. Any such
sale deed executed by placing reliance on Ex-B3 and Ex-B4 is also
fraudulent document and it is void, which cannot create any right in favour
of the plaintiff.
28.When the defendants 1 and 2 have specifically filed a written
statement even as early as in the month of December 2003 and have denied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
the title of the plaintiff and have created a cloud over the title of the plaintiff
by claiming an exclusive title over the suit property, then, the suit filed by
the plaintiff for bare injunction without seeking for a relief of declaration is
not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Anathula Sudhakar vs P.Buchi Reddy (Ded) by LRs and others, reported
in (2008) 4 SCC 594. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted
hereunder:
“21.To summarise, the position in regard to suits for
prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:
(a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not
have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or
without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the
plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of
possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential
injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's
lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for
an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with
possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and
substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with
reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure
possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property,
as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and
substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it
will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction,
unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue
regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu
Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202] ).
Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and
where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for
injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if
the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to
title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of
comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the
issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and
appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if
the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may
decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction.
But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of
title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having
clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven
to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for
declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully
makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court
should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will
enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a
more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of
the case.”
29.Here, when admittedly, the plaintiff does not have any right over
the suit property and the defendants 1 and 2 having purchased the suit
property in the year 1993 through two registered sale deeds, whereby,
already the rights of the third defendant have been conveyed in favour of the
defendants 1 and 2 and in view of the settled decisions of the Hon'ble Full
Bench of this Court referred to above, since the documents in Ex-B3 and
Ex-B4 are void documents, the plaintiff ought to have sought a relief of
declaration, when the defendants 1 and 2 have raised a cloud on the title of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
the plaintiff. Admittedly, when the plaintiff has not sought for declaration,
the suit for bare injunction filed without seeking for a declaration, in view
of the above referred decisions, is not maintainable.
30.The defendants 1 and 2, by filing documents in Ex-B7 to Ex-B10
and also Ex-B13, have established that they have been in possession of the
suit property, whereas, the plaintiff, who had come up with the suit for bare
injunction, had failed to establish that he had been in possession of the suit
property on the date filing of the suit. The Courts below have rightly held
that the documents relied on by the plaintiff by placing reliance on Ex-B3
and Ex-B4 cannot be sustained and further, the plaintiff failed to prove his
possession on the date of filing of the suit property. The Courts below have
come to the conclusion and arrived at a concurrent finding of fact based on
the materials available on record and this Court does not find any illegality
or perversity in the findings arrived at.
31.In view of the above deliberations, all the substantial questions of
law framed are answered against the appellant and in favour of the
respondents 1 and 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
32.In view of the above, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However,
there is no order as to costs.
33.In view of the above findings and conclusions, all the applications
filed in this appeal are all unnecessary and accordingly, all the Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.
34.The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the
petition to receive additional document has been dismissed, the original sale
deed filed by the appellant along with the Civil Miscellaneous Petition
could be returned. The Registry is directed to return the original sale deed
filed by the appellant before this Court in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition
in C.M.P.(MD)No.7186 of 2020 after proper identification and on
substitution of the document by a certified copy.
30.06.2025
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
2.The II Additional District Munsif Judge, Dindigul.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
cmr
Judgment made in
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
