Kerala High Court
Sreedevi vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 9 January, 2020
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 19TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.26248 OF 2011(E)
PETITIONER:
SREEDEVI, W/O.VIJAYA KUMAR,
KONADACHAM VEEDU, SREENAGAR -41,, KUREEPUZHA,
KAVANADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.MOHANLAL
SRI.T.PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
VANCHIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR
REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT,, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM -13.
3 KAMALAMMAYAMMA
W/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,, KOCHUTHEVANATHU VEEDU,
KUREEPUZHA.P.O,, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM - 691 604.
4 MANOHARAN PILLAI
KOCHUTHEVANATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA PO, THRIKKADAVOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN 691604.
R1-R2 BY SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.26248/2011 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of January 2020 The petitioner is the daughter of the 3 rd respondent. The 4th respondent is her brother. The respondents 3 and 4 executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. This is produced as Ext.P1 dated 06.10.2006. There is no reservation for cancellation of deed on the happening of an event. Thereafter, on 09.05.2011, respondents 3 and 4 registered a cancellation deed. This cancellation was a unilateral cancellation. The petitioner was not a party to such cancellation deed. Challenging this action of cancellation of a registered deed, the petitioner approached this Court.
2. This Court, in Pavakkal Noble John and another vs. Kerala State and others (2010 (3) KHC 879), considered the law in regard to unilateral cancellation of sale deed and held that the Registrar must refuse to register the cancellation deed executed unilaterally.
3. Learned Government Pleader points out that this is a case where settlement deed was executed and that is the reason the Sub Registrar registered the cancellation deed.
W.P.(C) No.26248/2011 3
4. Nobody has a case that there is reservation in the settlement deed for cancellation by the executant unilaterally. In such circumstances, the registration of cancellation deed is illegal. Once the subject matter of the settlement deed is conveyed to the donee, the donee becomes the absolute owner. The cancellation of a registered deed executed unilaterally will create impediment in the enjoyment of the property. No doubt, the executant of such deed is having a remedy under the Specific Relief Act to cancel such deed before the Civil Court. But they cannot execute a cancellation deed and cancel the settlement deed executed in favour of the donee.
In such circumstances, this writ petition has to be allowed. The Sub Registrar is directed to strike off the registration of cancellation deed from the records and issue encumbrance certificate showing that there is no cancellation deed.
This writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp W.P.(C) No.26248/2011 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO:3044/2006 DATED 06.10.2006 OF KOLLAM SUB REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.04.2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SAKTHIKULANGARA.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:SZR2- 6507/2011 DATED 23.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY KOLLAM CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED NO:1217/2011 DATED 09.05.2011 OF KOLLAM SUB REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.08.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
True Copy P.S to Judge smp