← Library
Madras High CourtWP/16717/2015allowed

Mr.T.Umapathy v. The Sub Registrar[Amended]

2021-10-08Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.10.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.16717 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 Mr.T.Umapathy ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Sub-Registrar, Office of Arani Sub-Registrar, No.3, S.P.Kovil Street, Arani, Chennai-601 101.

2. Smt.Pankajam ... Respondents (R1 address amended as per order dated 24.08.2015 by MMSJ in M.P.No.3 of 2015 in W.P.No.16717 of 2015) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Deed of Cancellation of Settlement dated 13.05.2015 unilaterally executed by the 2nd respondent registered as document No.2803 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to remove/delete the entry of the said cancellation of settlement deed in the encumbrance certificate.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sreenivasalu For 1st Respondent: Mr.Gokul Krishnan Government Advocate For 2nd respondent Mr.K.Boopalan

O R D E R

The writ petitions filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Deed of Cancellation of Settlement dated 13.05.2015 unilaterally executed by the 2nd respondent registered as document No.2803 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and

consequently, direct the 1st respondent to remove/delete the entry of the said cancellation of settlement deed in the encumbrance certificate.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property owned by the 2nd respondent, who is none other than the mother of the petitioner herein. She executed the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property comprised in S.No.439/2 ad-measuring acre 3.40 cents and the property comprised in S.No.442/2 to an extent of acre 0.57 1⁄2 cents out of acre 2.35 cents situated at Kannigaipur Village by way of unconditional, irrevocable and absolute settlement deed dated 23.01.2014 registered as Doc.No.334 of 2014 in the office of the 1st respondent.

3 In pursuant to the settlement, the petitioner was issued patta and he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. While being so, the 2nd respondent, without any prior notice to the petitioner and without knowledge of the petitioner unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner by way of a Deed of Cancellation of Settlement dated 13.05.2015 registered as Doc.No.2803 of 2015 in the office of the 1st respondent herein.

4. However, the first respondent has no power or authority to cancel the settlement deed unilaterally without the knowledge of the petitioner and without notice to the petitioner herein. The issues involved in the writ petition has already been settled by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India Ltd Vs. Hadeeja Ammal reported in 2011

(2) CTC 1, which was subsequently followed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.108 of 2020 dated 24.01.2020, wherein, it is held as follows:

5. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the Full Bench has dealt with the aforesaid issues in detail holding that the writ petition would be maintainable, and on merits also held that 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. The sum and substance, therefore, is that the writ petition filed by the respondents could be entertained, and in our opinion has been rightly allowed, following the dictum of the Full Bench in the case of Latif Estate Line India Ltd vs Hadeeja Ammal reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 cited supra.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants then contends that the issuance of a Writ by this Court should not amount to extinguishing of any of the claims that the appellants can set up, questioning the very execution of the settlement deed dated 25.02.2008.

7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the W.A.No.108 of 2020 appellants that the appellants' right to a settlement deed dated 25.02.2008 cannot be usurped by any legal provision and more so, the writ petition could not have been entertained after such a long passage of time.

8. We may clarify that an otherwise void document, as held by the Full Bench, cannot rejuvenate or survive any lapse of time and would not improve the situation any further, in as much as the document is non-est in the eyes of law. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.08.2018 is simply a declaration to that effect, taking into account the law propounded by the Full Bench, which in no way defeats the rights of the appellants to contest the original settlement deed dated 25.02.2008.

We say this for the reason that the learned counsel for the appellants is right in his submission that the declaration granted by the High Court cannot extinguish the rights of the appellants to contest their position before the appropriate forum and even otherwise, the appellants must have been under the belief that the cancellation deed had fulfilled the said purpose. This may also be coupled with the issue of limitation, if any action is proposed by the appellants and we therefore, make it clear that from that point of view, W.A.No.108 of 2020 the filing of the writ petition and the grant of declaration on 10.08.2018 shall not be a disadvantage in that regard.

5. In view of the settled law, this Court has no hesitation to allow the writ petition and the registration of Cancellation of Settlement Deed dated 13.05.2015 registered as Doc.No.2803 of 2015 in the office of the 1st respondent herein is hereby quashed. It is also made clear that the cancellation of the said registration will not be a bar for the 2nd respondent herein to agitate her right before the competent civil court challenging the settlement deed which was originally executed by her in favour of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssn To The Sub-Registrar, Office of Arani Sub-Registrar, No.3, S.P.Kovil Street, Arani, Chennai-601 101.

+1cc to Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, Advocate, S.R.No.53964 W.P.No.16717 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 GJ(CO) CB(10/11/2021)