Madras High Court
A.Sekar vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 15 September, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.3438 of 2024
---------------------------
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No. 3438 of 2024
1.A.Sekar
2.Lakshmi
3.Rajammal
4.Anjalam
5.P.Thangamani
6.P.Manivannan
7.D.Poornima
8.P.Revathi
9.P.Ramya
10.Sujeetha
[Rep. by her Power of Attorney P.Thangamani, 5th appellant]
...Appellants
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The District Registrar, Salem (East),
Integrated Building Complex,
Kumaragiri Bye Pass Road, Ammapet,
Salem – 636 014.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
W.A.No.3438 of 2024
---------------------------
3.The Sub-Registrar Office,
Dadagapatti,
Integrated Building Complex,
Kumaragiri Bye Pass Road,
Ammapet, Salem – 636 014.
...Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.2482 of 2024 dated
05.02.2024.
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Senior Counsel
For Mr.S.Arjun
For Respondents: Mr.U.Baranidharan,
Spl. Govt. Pleader
******
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Under assail is the writ order dated 05.02.2024 made in
W.P.No.2482 of 2024.
2. The writ petitioners are the appellants. The facts in nutshell
show that the father of the appellants 1 to 4 had executed a settlement
deed dated 13.06.1976 in favour of the 1st appellant Mr.Sekar.
Subsequently, the settlor late Angamuthu unilaterally cancelled the
settlement deed by executing a cancellation deed on 05.09.1990. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
settlor late Angamuthu died on 28.11.2016. After the death of the settlor,
his legal heirs have filed a Writ Petition to nullify the cancellation of the
settlement deed dated 13.06.1976 on 05.09.1990.
3. The writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground
that there was a long delay in seeking the relief. The settlor died on
28.01.2016 and the Writ Petition was filed after a lapse of 8 years from
the date of the death of the settlor. This Court is of the considered view
that all the legal heirs of late Angamuthu have chosen to file a Writ
Petition seeking cancellation of the cancellation deed executed in favour
of the 1st appellant. Secondly the Writ Court has made a finding that
there is a possibility of claiming adverse possession. If at all any third
party interest has been already created, that is to be determined or
adjudicated in the manner known to law.
4. As far as the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is concerned,
unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is impermissible and the
issues in this regard are no more res integra and settled by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India and Others
vs. Hadeeja Ammal and Others1, and the relevant paragraphs are
2011 (2) CTC 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
extracted hereunder:
“48. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act defined the word "Sale", which means
transfer of ownership by one person to another.
In other words, sale is transfer of all rights, title
and interest in the properties which are
possessed by the transferor to another person
namely., the purchaser. In case of transfer by
way of sale, the transferor cannot retain any part
of his interest or right in that property. Such
transfer of ownership must be for a price paid or
promised or part-paid and part-promised. Even if
the whole price is not paid, but the document is
executed and registered, the sale would be
complete. The transfer is complete and effective
upon the completion of the registration of the
sale deed. Once the vendor is divested himself
of his ownership of the property, then he retains
no control or right over the said property.
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 extinguish any right, title
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
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 void
able, and who has reasonable
apprehension that such
instrument, if left out standing,
may cause him serious injury,
may sue to have it adjudged void
or void able, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
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 MANU/TN/0455/1959 : AIR 1960 Mad 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
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
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 inquiatimet 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 favor 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
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.”
5. The legal position was further confirmed by the subsequent Full
Bench Judgment in the case of Sasikala vs. The Revenue Divisional
Officer, cum Sub Collector, Devakottai and Others2. The relevant
paragraphs are extracted here under:
“54. The third step namely the act of
registration, is something that the Registering
Authority is called upon to do statutorily. While
the executant of the document and the person
claiming under the document (claimant) are the
only actors involved in the first two steps, the
Registering Officer is the actor in the third step.
Apart from the third step which is wholly in the
domain of the Registering Authority, he may also
have a role to play in the second step when a
document is presented for registration and the
execution thereof is admitted. The role that is
(2022) 7 MLJ 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
assigned to the Registrar in the second step is
that of verification of the identity of the person
presenting the document for registration.
55. Thus, the first two steps in the process
of registration are substantial in nature, with the
parties to the document playing the role of the
lead actors and the Registering Authority playing
a guest role in the second step. The third step is
procedural in nature where the Registering
Authority is the lead actor.
...
59. Much ado was sought to be made by
contending that the Appellant approached the
High Court without disclosing the previous orders
of the High Court and this Court, relegating them
to civil court for the adjudication of their claim.
Reliance was also placed in this regard on the
decision of this Court in Raj Kumar Soni vs.
State of U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635.”
6. In view of the judgments (cited supra), the unilateral cancellation
of settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner is liable to be set
aside. However, the grant of writ relief in favour of the appellants would
not be a bar in respect of any other claim, if any, exists with the third
parties during the interregnum period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
7. With these observations, the writ order dated 05.02.2024 made
in W.P.No.2482 of 2024 is set aside. Consequently, the Writ Appeal
stands allowed. No costs.
(S.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
15.09.2025
dsa
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
To:
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The District Registrar, Salem (East),
Integrated Building Complex,
Kumaragiri Bye Pass Road, Ammapet,
Salem – 636 014.
3.The Sub-Registrar Office,
Dadagapatti,
Integrated Building Complex,
Kumaragiri Bye Pass Road,
Ammapet, Salem – 636 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
dsa
15.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
