Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 3001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.D. Audikesavalu, J.
R. Thirupathi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P. No.21504 of 2019
Decided On : 28-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Abdul Rahman for M/s. Nathan and Associates
For the Respondent:Mr. J. Purushothaman, Government Advocate for Mr. T.M. Pappiah, Special Government Pleader
Headnote:
Constitution of India Article 226 – Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue – Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order vide proceedings passed by the Third Respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the Second to Fourth Respondents to remove the entry pertaining to the settlement deed vide Doc. duly registered on the file of the Third Respondent, from all the records maintained by the Second to Fourth Respondents herein – Heard, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First Respondent, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Second to Fourth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties –Held, On a bare reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is incumbent upon the Fourth Respondent to make endorsement of cancellation on the copy of the instrument contained in the books as well as in the entries in the registers maintained in that regard by the Registration Department of the fact of its cancellation by the decree on receiving such communication from the Civil Court – Insofar as the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Satya Pal Anand -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, is concerned, on its perusal and in particular, the paragraphs referred in the order impugned in the Writ Petition, it must be noticed that the same is related to the question as to whether the Registering Authority has power to cancel the registration of a registered document, and it has nothing to do with making entries in the books maintained by the Registration Department on the cancellation of a registered document by a decree of the Civil Court, as in this case – As such, the impugned order passed by the Third Respondent cannot be sustained, and the same is set aside – Writ Petition is disposed
ORDER :
(Prayer :Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order vide proceedings No.521/2019 dated 06.06.2019 passed by the Third Respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the Second to Fourth Respondents to remove the entry pertaining to the settlement deed vide Doc. No.12322/2012 dated 06.11.2012 duly registered on the file of the Third Respondent, from all the records maintained by the Second to Fourth Respondents herein.)
Heard Mr. A. Abdul Rahman, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. J. Purushothaman, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. T.M. Pappiah, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Second to Fourth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The chronological sequence of events leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are given below:-
(i) The father of the Petitioner, viz., Ramakrishnan, who was the absolute owner of the vacant land comprised in Survey Nos. 250/17, 250/3B, 366/2, 231/1, 366/2 and 2/1, 67/12A, 6A, 67/12A9A admeasuring to an extent of acre 13.0225 cents, died on 26.08.1988.
(ii) The mother of the Petitioner, viz., Navneedhammal, subsequently died on 01.06.2012.
(iii) According to the Petitioner after the demise of his parents, the aforesaid property devolved upon him, his brother Venkatesan (who subsequently died) and his sisters, viz., E. Nagarathinam, K. Thilothammal, K. Rasu, V. Kanagasundaram and R. Anjali Devi.
(iv) Thereafter, four of his Sisters, viz., K. Thilothammal, K. Rasu, V. Kanagasundaram and R. Anjali Devi, settled their respective shares in the aforesaid property in favour of their another sister, viz., E. Nagarathinam, by settlement deed dated 06.11.2012, which was registered as document No. 12322 of 2012 in the office of the Fourth Respondent.
(v) The Petitioner had instituted suit in O.S. No. 54 of 2015 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chengalpet, against his sisters, and wife and children of the deceased brother Venkatesan, in which compromise was entered between the parties that the settlement deed dated 06.11.2012 registered as document No. 12322 of 2012 executed by K. Thilothammal, K. Rasu, V. Kanagasundaram and R. Anjali Devi in favour of E. Nagarathinam is null and void, and has been recorded in the Lok Adalat held on 21.04.2017.
(vi) The Petitioner had made a representation dated 20.11.2018 to the Second to Fourth Respondents requesting to remove the entries relating to the settlement deed dated 06.11.2012, which has been declared as null and void, in the aforesaid suit.
(vii) In W.P. No. 2206 of 2019 filed by the Petitioner, this Court by order dated 31.01.2019 without expressing any opinion on merits of the representation of the Petitioner, directed the Fourth Respondent to dispose the said representation of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
(viii) In pursuance thereof, the Third Respondent by proceedings No. 521/2019 dated 06.06.2019 after referring to Rule 116-A of the Registration Rules, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satya Pal Anand -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh [(2016) 10 SCC 767], held that in the absence of the any registered cancellation/revocation deed, the request of the Petitioner to remove the entry relating to earlier settlement deed No. 12322 of 2012 dated 06.11.2012 from Index-II, cannot be complied with.
Aggrieved thereby, the Writ Petition has been challenging the order passed by the Third Respondent and direct the Second to Fourth Respondents to remove the entry pertaining to the settlement deed dated 06.11.2012 registered as No. 12322 of 2012 in the office of the Fourth Respondent, from all the records maintained by the Second to Fourth Respondents.
3. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to recapitulate here that Section 21(1) of the Legal Ser
