The main legal point established in the judgment is that a deed of cancellation 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 court emphasized the importance of reconveying the property by a deed of conveyance by the transferee in favor of the transferor.

1. The petitioners in all these three writ petitions are one and the same persons. The first petitioner is the mother and the second petitioner is the son. When W.P.No.13062 of 2012 came up for admission, after giving private notice to parties, this court on being informed that the very same petitioners have filed other two writ petitions being W.P.Nos.4180 and 4181 of 2011, with the consent of parties directed those two writ petitions to be posted along with W.P.No.13062 of 2012. Accordingly, they were grouped together and a common order is passed.

2. The issue covered in all three writ petitions relating to a property in S.No.214/1A in Kattupakkam Village, Poondamalli Taluk. The first writ petition in W.P.No.4180 of 2011 was filed by petitioners to call for the deed of cancellation of sale deed, dated 27.07.2007. By the cancellation deed, the earlier sale deed executed on 12.06.2000 covered by document No.3523 of 2000 registered with the Sub Registrar Office, Kundrathur Sub Registrar was cancelled. That writ petition was admitted on 22.02.2011. Pending the writ petition, ad interim injunction was granted restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the propeties by executing any document. Inspiration for entertaining the writ petition and passing an interim order came from the judgment of the Full Bench in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Hadeeja Ammal and others reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1.

3. The second writ petition (W.P.No.4181 of 2011) was also filed by the same petitioners. The prayer was to set aside the deed of cancellation of settlement deed dated 27.7.2007 executed by the first petitioner's former husband through his power agent, i.e., the second respondent and registered as document No.9996 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur and seeks to set aside the same and to delete the entry of cancellation. That writ petition was admitted on 22.02.2011. Pending the writ petition, an interim injunction was granted similar to the one granted in the other writ petition. On notice, the third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, dated 23.02.2011.

4. W.P.No.13062 of 2012 was filed by the same petitioners to call for the sale deed dated 30.07.2010 executed by the third respondent as a power agent of the second respondent in favour of the fourth respondent and registered by the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur and after setting aside the same, seek for a direction to delete the entry of sale deed in document No.8403 of 2010, dated 30.07.2010.

5. Before proceeding with the facts of the case, it must be noted that the parties involved in these writ petitions are all closely related to each other. The first petitioner Sumathy is the daughter of the contesting respondent Mrs.Kamala Anbarasu. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. The first petitioner got married to one Panneerselvam shown as respondent No.2 in W.P.No.13062 of 2012 during the year 1986. From out of the wedlock, they gave birth to two children, one son Sidharth @ Cibi, the second petitioner in all writ petitions and one daughter Lallu @ Prathana. According to the first petitioner, the said Panneerselvam had purchased a property in Kattupakkam village in S.No.214/1A to an extent of 25 cents by way of a sale deed No.523 of 1990 and registered with the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur. From that day onwards, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the year 1991, she went along with her children to Australia to live with the said Panneerselvam. But, however as differences arose between the two, they obtained a decree of divorce from the Family Court at Australia on 14.11.1999. During the relevant time, Panneerselvam had executed a settlement deed through his power agent, i.e. mother-in-law, Kamala Anbarasu, the contesting respondent, in favour of the petitioners on 12.06.2000. Now that document was sought to be cancelled using the power agent, the first petitioner's mother, vide cancellation deed dated 27.