B.George Arogiyaraj v. The Inspector General Of Registration,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and W.M.P.No.9272 of 2024 B.George Arogiyaraj .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai - 600 028 2.The District Registrar District Registrar Office, Salem West No.313, 3rd Floor District Registration Office Campus Kottai Main Road Salem - 636 001 3.The Sub Registrar Joint - III Salem West No.314, 3rd Floor Collectorate Campus Salem - 636 001 .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the concerned records relating to the order in No.46896/U5/ 2023 dated 29.02.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to cancel the gift settlement deed registered by the 3rd respondent vide document No.290/2009 dated 16.02.2009 For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pavendhan 1/6
For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner for cancelling the registration of the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed.
2. The petitioner's father executed a irrevocable settlement deed in favour of the writ petitioner on 30.04.2007. Ever since the date of settlement, the petitioner is the absolute owner and enjoyment of the property. When the matter stood thus, on 16.02.2009, the settlor has registered the cancellation deed unilaterally. According to the writ petitioner, such unilateral cancellation is not valid in the eye of law. Immediately, he gave representation to the authorities to cancel the same. The District Registrar by Order dated 22.11.2022 having held that unilateral cancellation is not permissible under law, however, since the document does not fall within the ambit of Section 22A or 22-B of the Registration Act, the applicability of Section 77-B will not arise at all in this case. Hence, rejected the application. The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. Since, the same was not considered, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31111 of 2023 to consider the appeal and pass order. This Court, by order dated 26.10.2023 directed the first 2/6
respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner dated 06.07.2023 and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The first respondent, once again, by way of the impugned order confirmed the order of the District Registrar holding that the case of the applicant will not fall under Section 77-B of the Registration Act. Challenging the same, this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the unilateral cancellation is not permissible and void ab initio, rejecting the application is not valid in the eye of law.
4. Though the counter has not been filed, the learned Special Government Pleader fairly submitted that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is void ab initio as per the judgment of the full bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.6889 of 2020 etc., batch cases dated 02.09.2022 in the case of Sasikala vs. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector and another.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The settlement deed is originally executed in favour of the petitioner is irrevocable, 3/6
power to rejection is not reserved in the document itself. Such being a position, once the transfer already took place on the date of settlement deed, cancelling the settlement deed unilaterally particularly when there is no power of rejection reserved in the document cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
6. Though the registration of the document would not fall within the ambit of Sections 22-A or 22-B of the Registration Act and 77-B of the said Act, the fact remains that the very unilateral cancellation itself is prohibited under law, in fact, a circular dated 05.10.2007 issued by the Registration Department was already in vogue. The said circular was issued to all the Deputy Inspector Generals of Registration, District Registrars and Sub Registrar directing them that the deed of cancellation should bear the signature of both the vendor and purchaser. Though that relate to the sale deed, the settlement is also the transfer of the property, presenti like a sale deed. When the circular in this regard require both parties signature, the Sub-Registrar at the time of entertaining the document for unilateral cancellation ought to have rejected the said document. The same is not done in this case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the Full Bench has repeatedly held that the unilateral cancellation is void ab initio.
7. Such view of the matter, when the registration of the document 4/6
itself is held to be void, allowing such document in entry namely the encumbrance will create further confusion in respect of the title of the petitioner. Such view of the matter outright rejecting the application under provisions of law cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The official respondent is directed to make necessary entries in the encumbrance indicating that the cancellation deed registered on the file is void ab initio.
9. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 01.04.2024 dhk Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No : Yes/No To, 1.The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai - 600 028 N. SATHISH KUMAR , J.
5/6
dhk 2.The District Registrar District Registrar Office, Salem West No.313, 3rd Floor District Registration Office Campus Kottai Main Road Salem - 636 001 3.The Sub Registrar Joint - III Salem West No.314, 3rd Floor Collectorate Campus Salem W.P.No.8308 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.9272 of 2024 01.04.2024 6/6