A validly executed deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled; cancellation may only be bilateral and requires adherence to specific contractual and registration laws.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief:

“Wherefore, it is humbly prayed before this Honb’le Court to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned cancellation deed dated. 25-11-2022 registered by the Respondent No. 1 on 28-11-2022 marked at ANNEXURE-A and grant any other relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Gangadhar R. Gurumath appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil representing the respondent.

3. The issue at this juncture is in the subject petition as projected lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner is said to have been anointed as an Uttaradhikari of Shri Jagadguru Shivanand Mutt, Gadag through a deed that was executed from the hands of the respondent No.2, who was the then Senior Mathadipathi (they would be referred to as the Senior Pontiff and the Junior Pontiff for the sake of convenience). The Senior Pontiff, owing to his age and other manifold circumstances, executes a deed of bringing in the Junior Pontiff as the Uttaradikari post his demise. The deed reads as follows.

4. The deed is unequivocal that the petitioner would be the Uttaradikari after his death. This is not in dispute. The issue is after execution of the said deed, it transpires that the respondent No.2 does an unilateral cancelling the said deed. The challenge is to the cancellation of the deed.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled principle of law that a deed validly executed i.e., a bilateral deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the concept of contract would become applicable to the case at hand as well as there cannot be cancellation of a contract which was entered into between two parties by a single party to the contract. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that a civil suit has been filed on challenging the very cancellation of the contract, but if this Court would decide the issue, the rigmarole of trial would be obviated and therefore submits that this Court should entertain the petition and answer the simple issue as to whether there could be unilateral cancellation of a bilateral contract.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would again take this Court through the documents appended to the petition and the statement of objections to demonstrate that the petitioner's right to become an Uttaradikari was only after the demise of the respondent No.2, the executant of the document. Before that, no right of him to become an Uttaradikari can be claimed. The reason for cancellation is that the petitioner anointed himself as an Uttaradikari even when the respondent No.2 was alive. Therefore, the cancellation had to come about. He would submit that suit in O.S. No.45 of 2022 challenges the very same action. Therefore, the parallel remedies should not be permitted to be entertained at the hands of this Court.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petition would now join issue in placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.103965 of 2023 by which the Co-ordinate Bench holds that a document that was executed cannot be cancelled unilaterally. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the issue in the lis is identical to what was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench.

8. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the