S.Badhusha v. Inspector General Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.NO.6091 OF 2014
1. S.Badhusha
2. S.Jahangir
3. S.Gulabjan
4. S.Abdulla ... Petitioners .Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Shanthome Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2. The Sub Registrar, Manavala Nagar, Thiruvallur
3. Guljar Bee ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the cancellation deed registered by the second respondent in document No.358 of 2012 dated 30.12.2011 as illegal, void and against the provisions of Registration Act.
For Petitioners :
Mr.K.P.Kesavan For R1 & 2 :
Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan Government Advocate For R3 :
No appearance
ORDER
The writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the cancellation deed registered by the second respondent in document No.358 of 2012 dated 30.12.2011 as illegal, void and against the provisions of Registration Act.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the third respondent has executed a registered release deed dated 03.10.2011 and thereby relinquished her 3/40 share over the property of 10 acres and 4 cents of punja lands under patta Nos.623, 595, 750 and 1671 situated at Papparambakkam Village, Kadambathur, Thiruvallur District in favour of the petitioners vide registered document No.4282 of 2011 on the file of the second respondent herein. However, without any notice to the petitioners and without assigning any reason, all of a sudden, the third respondent executed cancellation deed and registered vide document No.358 of 2012 dated 30.12.2011 and thereby cancelled the release deed executed by the third respondent. The said document was unilaterally presented for registration. Without any notice and without any enquiry, the second respondent registered the unilateral cancellation deed.
3. However, the second respondent has no power or authority to cancel the settlement deed unilaterally without the knowledge of the petitioners and without notice to the petitioners. 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 WA.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.
4. In view of the settled law, this Court has no hesitation to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the registration of cancellation of settlement deed in doc.No.358 of 2012 dated 30.12.2011 is hereby quashed. It is also made clear that the cancellation of the said registration
will not be a bar for the third respondent herein to agitate her right before the competent civil court challenging the settlement deed which was originally executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioners. No order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar lok To 1.
The Inspector General of Registration, Shanthome Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2.
The Sub Registrar, Manavala Nagar, Thiruvallur.
W.P.NO.6091 OF 2014 PMK(CO) PBS/30/11/2021