Madras High Court
P.Meiyappan vs The Sub-Registrar on 11 January, 2019
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.01.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
W.P.No.18467 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.16172 of 2016
P.Meiyappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub-Registrar,
Chengalpattu Joint II,
Kancheepuram High Road,
Natham, Chengalpattu – 603 002.
2. M.Paramasivam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the 1st respondent culminating in the registration of the
unilateral cancellation of settlement deed dated 21.04.2016 executed
by the 2nd respondent in respect of the petitioner's property, viz., land
and building at Door No.7, Block No.11, LLIG, Ottakoothar Street, NH-
1, Marimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu – 603 209, comprised in Survey
No.45/Part, Peramanur Village, situated within the Sub-Registration
District of Chengalpattu Joint II and Registration District of
Chengalpattu and registered on 22.04.2016 as Document No.4193 of
2016, Book I on the file of the 1st respondent, quash the same and
consequently, direct the 1st respondent to make necessary entries in
Book I on his file recording such quashing.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anbumani
For 1st Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah
Special Government Pleader
For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
-----
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1 st respondent culminating in the registration of the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed dated 21.04.2016 executed by the 2nd respondent in respect of the petitioner's property, viz., land and building at Door No.7, Block No.11, LLIG, Ottakoothar Street, NH-1, Marimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu – 603 209, comprised in Survey No.45/Part, Peramanur Village, situated within the Sub-Registration District of Chengalpattu Joint II and Registration District of Chengalpattu and registered on 22.04.2016 as Document No.4193 of 2016, Book I on the file of the 1 st respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to make necessary entries in Book I on his file recording such quashing.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the above-mentioned property was purchased in the name of the 2nd respondent, who is the father of the petitioner, from one K.N.Janakiraman vide a Sale Deed dated 25.02.2013 registered as Document No.1986 of 2013, Book I on the file of the 1 st respondent. The said property is a house property comprising of a Ground Floor and First Floor constructed on the land measuring an extent of 912 sq.ft.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been working as a Quality Controller in Thailand from 2010 and used to visit his parents and sister every year during his leave. Since his mother fell seriously ill, he came to India along with his wife in January 2016 and they were living together in the above property. The mother of the petitioner died on 05.02.2016. After the demise of his mother, the 2nd respondent executed a Will dated 18.02.2016 registered as Document No.14 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent. Subsequently, on 21.03.2016, the 2nd respondent executed an unconditional Settlement Deed registered as Document No.2884 of 2016 on the file of the 1 st respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner had faced some shortage of money, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh from the 2nd respondent and executed a Mortgage Deed mortgaging the above property as Document No.2885 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had repaid the said sum of Rs.1.00 lakh to the 2nd respondent and requested him to cancel the Mortgage Deed, but, the 2nd respondent had not cancelled the same.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the 2nd respondent has cancelled the Settlement Deed, which was executed in favour of the petitioner. Further, a Receipt dated 21.04.2016 for repayment of the said sum of Rs.1.00 lakh was registered on 22.04.2016 as Document No.4192 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent. On the same day, the 2 nd respondent brought about a unilateral cancellation of Settlement Deed and the same was registered as Document No.4193 of 2016 on the file of the 1 st respondent. Challenging the unilateral cancellation done by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the materials available on record.
7. The unilateral cancellation of any settlement deed has been deprecated by this Court in several judgments.
8. It is relevant to note that a Full Bench of this Court in Latif Estate Line India Ltd., Vs. Hadeeja Ammal [2011 (2) CTC 1], held that the unilateral cancellation of a deed cannot be done. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, has also issued a circular very recently in proceedings No.52666/C1/2018, dated 29.11.2018, wherein, considering all the judicial pronouncements on these aspects held that unilateral cancellation of such settlement deed without consent of Settlee is against public policy declared in Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This Circular further states that in view of the legal position, it was classified that any Settlement Deed, which is sought to be unilaterally cancelled by the settler is presented for registration, registering officers shall not accept such unilateral cancellation deeds for registration and check slip shall be issued in this regard.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
9. When the Settlement Deed is unconditional and irrevocable, the unilateral cancellation is being opposed to the public policy. In the event, the executant of the Settlement Deed is aggrieved by the same for having executed under coercion or undue influence, it is for him or her to approach the Civil Court to set aside the same and cannot unilaterally cancel it by way of deed of cancellation.
10. A Deed of Cancellation of a Settlement Deed unilaterally executed by the transferor does not create assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the property, which has already been transferred. Therefore, the first respondent also ought not to have entertained the registration of the Cancellation Deed. Immediately after the Settlement Deed is executed, the settlee/transferee becomes the absolute owner, as the property vests with the settlee and the same cannot be divested by the Cancellation Deed, even with consent of the parties. Perhaps, the proper way to re-convey the property is by a deed of conveyance by the transferee in favour of the transferor. Any such transfer by way of sale or settlement deed can be cancelled at the instance of the transferor only taking re-course to the Civil Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
11. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 also conceded to that if it is an unilateral cancellation of the Settlement Deed, the same is liable to be set aside.
12. In view of the above discussions, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the Document No.4193 of 2016 dated 22.04.2016 cancelling the Settlement Deed dated 21.03.2016, as null and void. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.04.2019
asi
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Chengalpattu Joint II,
Kancheepuram High Road,
Natham, Chengalpattu – 603 002.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
asi
W.P.No.18467 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.16172 of 2016
15.04.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in