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 2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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.
4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
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 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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. 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
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?” 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
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 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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.
10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
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.
11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
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 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 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.
24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
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
25/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018
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.
26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
cmr Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.138 of 2018 30.06.2025 27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 07:20:58 pm )