SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3341

High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN
E.V.P. Estates @ Properties Development Ltd, Rep By its Director, Chennai
Versus
Sub-Registrar of Pammal, Chennai & Another
Writ Petition No.23891, 23892 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009
Decided on : 31-07-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Raja, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, S.P. Prabakaran, Additional Government Pleader, R2, M. Mahendrakumar, Advocate.

The unilateral cancellation of a sale deed is invalid, and the registering authority does not have the power to register such a cancellation.

Headnote:

Cancellation of Deed of Sale - Property Dispute - Companies Act, 1956 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908 - [Companies Act, 1956] - [Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908, Section 32-A] - The court discussed the validity of a unilateral cancellation of a sale deed and the authority of the registering authority to register such a cancellation. The court relied on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Registration Act, 1908, and cited relevant case law to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, entered into an agreement to purchase property from the second respondent. The second respondent unilaterally executed a cancellation of the sale deed, which the petitioner challenged as invalid.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the unilateral cancellation of the sale deed was invalid and that the registering authority did not have the power to register such a cancellation. The court granted the relief sought by the petitioner and allowed the writ petition.

Issues: Validity of unilateral cancellation of sale deed, authority of registering authority to register such cancellation

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Registration Act, 1908, and cited relevant case law to establish that the unilateral cancellation of a sale deed was invalid and that the registering authority did not have the power to register such a cancellation.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Judgment :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the cancellation of the deed of sale, dated 16.8.2007, executed by the second respondent and registered as Document No.3937 of 2007, on the file of the first respondent, as null and void.

3. It has been stated that the petitioner company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, had entered into an agreement, with the second respondent, during the course of its business, to purchase the property, measuring an extent of about 16 acres and 13 cents, comprised in the various survey numbers, situated in Kollapakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Pursuant to the said agreement, the second respondent, through his Power of Attorney, had executed a registered sale deed, dated 31.10.2005, registered as Document No.4102 of 2005, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Pammal, conveying an extent of 11 acres and 90 cents, comprised in the various survey numbers. The second respondent had registered another sale deed, dated 10.2.2006, registered as Document No.412 of 2006, on the file of the said Sub-Registrar, Pammal, conveying an extent of 3 acres and 38 cents, comprised in two survey numbers, in Kollapakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. As such, the second respondent had conveyed a total extent of 15 acres and 28 cents, to and in favour of the petitioner company.

4. It has been further stated that, when the sale deeds had been executed, the second respondent had put the petitioner company in absolute possession of the properties in question and had also handed over the documents pertaining to the said properties. From the date of the purchase of the properties, the petitioner company has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the second respondent herein, had executed a `Cancellation of Deed of Sale’, on 16.8.2007, which had been registered, on 28.8.2007, seeking to cancel the sale deed executed on 31.10.2005. The said deed, bearing Document No.3937 of 2007, had been registered on the file of the first respondent.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the `Cancellation of Deed of Sale’, dated 16.8.2007, registered as Document No.3937 of 2007, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Pammal, executed on 31.10.2005, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. When the sale deed had been signed by the vendor, as well as the purchaser, it cannot be cancelled by executing a cancellation deed by one of the parties to the said document, unilaterally.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Hadeeja Ammal 2011(2) CTC 1, wherein, it has been held that a deed of cancellation of sale does not create, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in an immovable property and has no effect in the eye of law. Once the title to the property is transferred, by way of a sale, it cannot be divested by the execution of a deed of cancellation, even with the consent of the parties concerned. As such, a deed of cancellation cannot be accepted for registration, as there is no provision in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or in the Registration Act, 1908, for the cancellation or annulment of a sale deed.

7. The learned counsel had also relied on a decision of this Court, reported in G.D. Subramaniam Vs. The Sub Registrar 2009(1) CTC 709, wherein, it had been held that the registration of a cancellation deed of sale executed, unilaterally, without the knowledge and consent of the other parties to the sale deed, and without complying with Section 32-A of the Registration Act, 1908, is invalid, as such registration is without jurisdiction and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

8. In the c




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top