Madras High Court
S.Joseph Raj vs The Sub – Registrar on 27 July, 2022
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.17232 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.17232 of 2021
S.Joseph Raj
Rep. by his General Power Agent
G.Thomai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub – Registrar,
SRO at Vadaponparappi,
Sankarapuram Taluk,
Kallakurichi District.
2.Savarimuthu
3.Selvaraju
4.Abraham
5.Lookas
6.Selvaraju
7.Sahayamary
8.John Paul ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records leading
to the impugned unilateral cancellation of settlement deeds, registered
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17232 of 2021
as Document Nos.16/2019 and 18/2019, dated 07.01.2019 on the file
of first respondent and quash the same as illegal, void, nos-est in the
eye of law, without jurisdiction and against the public policy and
further directing the first respondent to remove the entries in respect
of documents concerned and consequential transactions from the
concerned registers.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Agni Selvaraju
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
M/s.C.Umashankar for R2
M/s.K.Selvaraj for R7
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records leading to the impugned unilateral cancellation of settlement deeds, registered as Document Nos.16/2019 and 18/2019, dated 07.01.2019 on the file of first respondent and to quash the same as illegal, void, nos-est in the eye of law, without jurisdiction and against the public policy and further directing the first respondent to remove the entries in respect of documents concerned and consequential transactions from the concerned registers.
2/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is servicing as a Priest in Catholic Christian Center at West Indies from 15.06.1996 and from the year 1996, the petitioner spent his earnings for the maintenance of his parents, four brothers and three sisters.
Considering the love and affection of the petitioner over his parents, brothers and sisters, the petitioner's father/ second respondent executed two settlement deeds in favour of the petitioner vide document no.4/18 dated 02.01.2018 and document no.81/2018 dated 18.01.2018, registered on the file of Sub – Registrar Office, Vadaponparappi, Kallakurichi, however, thereafter, the petitioner's father presented two unilateral cancellation of settlement deeds for cancellation of the settlement deeds executed in favour of the petitioner, before the first respondent and the same were registered as Document Nos.16/2019 and 18/2019, dated 07.01.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that out of his hard earned money, the petitioner took care of his parents, four brothers and three sisters and considering his love and affection, the petitioner's father executed two settlement deeds in his 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 favour, however, later, the petitioner's father unilaterally cancelled the said settlement deeds, which is contrary to Circular dated 29.11.2018 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, which mandates the presence of settlor and settlee, while cancelling the settlement deed.
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 3364 (N.Jeevalakshmi and another Vs. N.Maheswaran and others).
4.The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent submitted that the petitioner and the second respondent colluded together inorder to cheat the seventh respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the second respondent mortgaged the property with the seventh respondent and the seventh respondent, believing the unilateral cancellation of settlement deeds parted huge money in favour of the second respondent. Hence, if the unilateral cancellation of settlement deeds is quashed, the seventh respondent will be put to great hardship.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 submitted that the mortgage amount will be settled in favour of the seventh respondent, by the second respondent, in the manner known to law.
6.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7.The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, considering the love and affection of the petitioner over his parents, brothers and sisters, the petitioner's father/ second respondent executed two settlement deeds in favour of the petitioner vide document no.4/18 dated 02.01.2018 and document no.81/2018 dated 18.01.2018, registered on the file of Sub – Registrar Office, Vadaponparappi, Kallakurichi, however, later, the petitioner's father unilaterally cancelled the said settlement deeds, which is contrary to Circular dated 29.11.2018 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, which mandates the presence of settlor and settlee, while cancelling the settlement deed.
8.It is useful to extract hereunder the relevant portion of the 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 Circular dated 29.11.2018 issued by the Inspector General of Registration:
“a) Any settlement deed wherein no condition whatsoever has been imposed on the Settlee, and if an unilateral revocation/ cancellation of such settlement deed executed by the Settlor is presented for registration, the registering officers shall not accept such unilateral revocation/ cancellation deeds for registration and check slip shall be issued in this regard.
b) Such revocation deeds can be accepted for registration only if Settlee has joined in execution and registration of the revocation deed.
c) Any settlement deed wherein certain condition has been imposed on the Settlee, and if an unilateral revocation/ cancellation of such settlement deed is executed by the Settlor clearly stating that Settlee has not fulfilled certain conditions imposed in the settlement deed, the same can be registered after 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 ensuring that said conditions were specifically mentioned in the said Settlement deed.”
9.Further, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 3364 (N.Jeevalakshmi and another Vs. N.Maheswaran and others) has dealt with similar issue and has held as follows:
“12.In paragraph 40, it has been specifically held that once the document is registered, it is not open for the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document and after making it clear, it was further observed that if a party is aggrieved by the registration of the document and its validity, challenge can be made before the civil court. The remedy before the civil court was thus given if somebody is aggrieved by the registration of the deed and not on cancellation of the registered deed. Rather for that, the Registrar has no power even as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 (supra) and if the Registrar still makes cancellation of the deed presented unilaterally, then the authority of the Registrar for it can be questioned by maintaining a writ petition being a legal question. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that the writ petition was maintainable and the order has not been passed going contrary to what has been held by the Apex Court.
13. The judgment in the case of P. Rukumani (supra) was against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, wherein also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand (supra) was considered. The Division Bench, however, referred the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India Limited v. Hadeeja Ammal, (2011) 2 CTC 1 to hold that writ jurisdiction would not be available, but it was after finding that a civil suit was already instituted by the appellants seeking cancellation of the sale deed which was later on cancelled by another cancellation deed dated 20.09.2007. It was on the facts of that case held that the 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 writ petition would not be maintainable. If there is any dispute on facts and the rights of the parties involved therein, the only appropriate remedy for the parties is to approach the civil court by way of civil suit. It would not apply when power of the authority is in question. The aforesaid would be borne out from paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment. But the facts of this case are distinguishable and, therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of P. Rukumani (supra) would not have application. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find that the writ petition in the case was not maintainable.
14. The further issue is regarding the authority of the Sub-Registrar to cancel the registered deed. The issue aforesaid has already been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand (supra) and held that once a deed is registered by the Sub-Registrar, he has no power to cancel it and, accordingly, the second issue is covered by the judgment in the case of Satya Pal Anand (supra) and in the instant case, the registered 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 settlement deed was cancelled unilaterally by the Sub-Registrar having no power for it and otherwise, the writ petition does not involve a disputed question of fact, rather the simple issue was as to whether the Sub-Registrar has authority to cancel the registered document or not and if it has no power to do it, the cancellation of the registered document is held to be illegal.
Accordingly, we answer the second issue.”
10.The Circular dated 29.11.2018 issued by the Inspector General of Registration and the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 3364 (N.Jeevalakshmi and another Vs. N.Maheswaran and others), mandates the presence of settlor and settlee, while cancelling the settlement deed. In the absence of beneficiary, unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is non est in law.
11.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned unilateral cancellation of settlement deeds, registered as Document Nos.16/2019 and 18/2019, dated 07.01.2019 on the file of 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 first respondent are hereby set aside. It is needless to say that the seventh respondent entitled to work his legal remedy in the manner known to law for recovery of money against 2nd respondent. No costs.
27.07.2022 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To
1.The Sub – Registrar, SRO at Vadaponparappi, Sankarapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District.
11/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri W.P.No.17232 of 2021 27.07.2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17232 of 2021 13/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis