The main legal point established in the judgment is that unilateral cancellation of registered sale deeds may not be permissible under the Indian Registration Act, and such cancellations should involve the mutual consent of both parties.

1. This Writ Appeal questions the order passed in the Review Application. The Appeal arises on the following facts:

A total extent of 11 acres of dry land comprised in S.F.No.212 of Semmipalayam Village, Coimbatore was purchased by the appellant from A. Palanichamy, the first respondent under three sale deeds registered on 11. 2002 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Palladam. The entire sale consideration was paid. Insofar as one of the documents, namely, Document No.4250 of 2002, as against the total sale consideration of Rs.2,40,000/-, apart from the payment of Rs.50,000/- in cash which was accepted, the remaining sale consideration was paid by way of cheque, but the cheque was dishonoured even after the registration. Pursuant to the above sale deeds, pattas was also given in the name of the appellant on 30.11.2002.

2. It appears that after a period of five years, i.e., on 9. 2007, deeds of cancellation of the earlier sale deeds were presented by the first respondent and the same came to be registered by the Sub-Registrar. In view of the said cancellation of the earlier sale deeds, an Application was made by the first respondent for transfer of Patta on 20.9.2007. Only when a notice was received by the appellant, she came to know that the sale deeds executed and registered in her favour as early as on 11. 2002 were unilaterally cancelled on 9. 2007. When the objections to the notice were pending, she filed Writ Petition No.36608 of 2007 questioning the proceedings pending before the Tahsildar. Nevertheless, patta granted in favour of the appellant was cancelled on 12. 2007 and therefore, another Writ Petition No.37686 of 2007 was filed on 112. 2007 questioning the cancellation of Patta. Therefore, an Application for amendment of the prayer in the Writ Petition No.376876 of 2007 was filed seeking for setting aside the unilateral registration of the sale deeds and the amendment prayed for was ordered. The Writ Petition was heard and ultimately allowed by order dated 9. 2008, having considered the submissions of both sides, on the ground that before the cancellation deeds were registered, the appellant, namely, the purchaser was not given any notice. It was also directed that the Sub-Registrar shall consider the objections and pass orders on merits. After the passing of the above order, the first respondent filed the Review Application seeking to review the order passed in the Writ Petition on the ground that the pendency of the Suit in O.S. No.385 of 2008 relating to the title and injunction filed by the first respondent against the appellant was not considered. Having considered the said submission, the Review Application was allowed by the learned Judge and the earlier order was rescinded. This order is questioned in this Appeal.

3. We have heard Mrs. Chitra Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sirnath Sridevan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. J. Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 4.

4. Going by the facts narrated above, the only question that falls for out consideration is as to whether the deeds of conveyance registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act could be unilaterally cancelled without either the knowledge, consent or the signature of the purchaser ?

5. This question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in E.R. Kalaivan v. The Inspector General of Registration and Another, 2009 (4) CTC 618 (Writ Appeal No.507 of 2009), to which one of us was a party. By judgment dated 7. 2009, the Division Bench has held that such a registration is impermissible in Law. However, in support of the plea that such registration of deed of cancellation could be made, the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, 2005 (4) CTC 606, and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Captain Dr. R. Bellie v. Sub-Registrar, 2007 (3) CTC 513: 2007 (3) MLJ 1025, as well the Full Ben