Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Lt.Col.R.John Daniel - Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar, Registration Department, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1698 of 2017 & WMP. No. 1668 of 2017
Decided On : 03-03-2020
For the Petitioner:T.P. Manoharan, SC, K.P. Jotheeswaran, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, P.P. Purushothaman, GA, R5 to R12, V. Karthikeyan, Advocates, R3 & R4, died.
Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed does not create any encumbrance in the property and is of no effect. The Writ Court is empowered to declare a document null and void if the registering authority was not competent to receive the document for registration.
Headnote:
Writ of Certiorari - Unilateral Cancellation of Settlement Deed - The Constitution of India - Article 226 - The Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54, Section 123, Section 124, Section 126 - The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47 - The Tamil Nadu Stamp Act, 1959 - Section 27
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the registration of the unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed executed by the third respondent, claiming that the cancellation was null and void. The property in question was initially settled in favor of the petitioner, but the third respondent unilaterally cancelled the settlement and settled the same property in favor of her daughters.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed and the subsequent settlement in favor of the daughters were invalid and could not have been accepted for registration. The court also allowed the writ petition and directed the second respondent to delete the entries from the register and encumbrance certificate.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed, the acceptance of the subsequent settlement, and the jurisdiction of the Writ Court to declare a document null and void.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Latif Estate Line India Limited vs. Hadeeja Ammal, which established 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 also emphasized that the Writ Court is empowered to hold that the second respondent was not competent to receive the unilateral cancellation deed for registration, and if the second respondent has done so, then the document is null and void.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the unilateral cancellation of the gift settlement deed and the subsequent settlement deed were held to be null and void. The second respondent was directed to delete the entries from the register and encumbrance certificate. The court also clarified that respondents 5 to 12 could approach the civil court for any claim over the property.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the registration of the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed dated 18.5.2015 executed and presented by the third respondent as doc.No.956 of 2015 on 20.8.2015 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.)
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the registration of the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed dated 18.5.2015, registered as doc.No.956 of 2015 on the file of the second respondent, executed by the third respondent, as being null and void.
3. Initially, there were only three respondents in this writ petition and the third respondent is the mother of the writ petitioner. Subsequently, respondents 4 to 8 - sisters of the petitioner, were impleaded. During the pendency of the writ petition, the third respondent died and since all the legal heirs are parties to the writ petition, nothing was required to be done. Thereafter, one of the sisters of the petitioner namely the fourth respondent died and her legal heirs namely respondents 9 to 12 were brought on record by order dated 02.1.2020.
4. The third respondent namely the mother of the petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 24.10.2014 in favour of the petitioner registered as doc.No.1406 of 2014 on the file of the second respondent. It is submitted that even prior to the execution of the settlement deed dated 24.10.2014, respondents 4 to 8 executed a certificate dated 30.11.1993 in the presence of the Executive Officer of Gudalur Town Panchayat conveying no objection to the third respondent to execute a gift settlement deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in question. There were three witnesses to the said no objection certificate dated 30.11.1993.
5. Therefore, the petitioner would contend that all the parties consented to execution of the said settlement deed dated 24.10.2014, after which, the petitioner was put in possession of the property. The property in question was assessed in the name of the petitioner from 28.11.2014. The petitioner also leased out the property in question on 01.2.2015. Subsequently, patta was granted in the name of the petitioner on 01.4.2015. There is another lease agreement dated 01.7.2015. These are all documents placed before this Court to show that the settlement deed dated 24.10.2014 was acted upon. While such was the factual position, the third respondent executed a document dated 18.5.2015, registered on 20.8.2015, cancelling the said settlement deed dated 24.10.2014 and vide another settlement dated 18.5.2015 registered on 27.8.2015, the third respondent settled the very same property in favour of her daughters namely respondents 4 to 8.
6. The question would be as to whether such a document could have been accepted by the second respondent for registration.
7. I need not labour much to find an answer to the said question in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, (to which, I am a party), in the case of Latif Estate Line India Limited vs. Hadeeja Ammal, 2011 (2) CTC 1, the relevant portions of which read as follows:
“59. After giving our anxious consideration on the questions raised in the instant case, we come to the following conclusion:-
(i) 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.
Such a document does not create any encumbrance in the property already transferred. Hence such a deed of cancellation cannot be accepted for registration.
(ii) Once title to the property is vested in the transferee by the sale of the property, it cannot be divested unto the transferor by execution and registration of a deed of cancellation even with the consent of the parties. The proper course would be to re-convey the property by a
