A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge the registration of a cancellation deed executed unilaterally by the settlor of a settlement deed. The proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file a civil suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: W.P. No.33892 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the proceedings of registration pertaining to Doc. No.7086 of 2012 dated 28.06.2012 registered on the file of the 2nd respondent and the subsequent entries if any with regard to the property situate in Old Survey No.446/1 & 2, New Survey No.446/1A1A1A/1E measuring about 3120 sq.ft., with the lands and building comprised in Door No.5, Plot No.8, 1st Main Road, Lenin Ngar, Ambattur, within the Thirumullaivoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.)

Common Order:

The writ petitions, which were listed on different dates, were heard, separately, but as the issue involved in all the writ petitions being common, questioning the registration of the cancellation deeds executed by the respective settlor in favour of the settlee and seeking cancellation of the said registered cancellation deeds, they are being dealt with by this common order.

2. In all the petitions, the respective petitioners have filed representation before the respective respondent/Registering authority for cancelling the deed in and by which the property settled in favour of the respective petitioners by execution of Settlement Deed was cancelled unilaterally by the Settlor without reference to the petitioners, who are the Settlees’ by registration of the deed of cancellation and on the rejection of the said representation of the petitioners by the respondent/registering authority, aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing these petitions. Insofar as W.P. No.7866 of 2022 is concerned, the cancellation deed has been registered cancelling the release deed executed in favour of the petitioner and in all other aspects, the issue is similar to the other writ petitions.

3. The facts in the present case are broadly common, in that, due to the relationship between the respective settlor and the settlee, the respective settlement deeds have been entered into initially, either unilaterally or bilaterally, but at the instance and wish of the respective settlor, but after a period of time, the settlor had unilaterally cancelled the said settlement by submitting cancellation deed, which has been entertained by the Registering Authority leading to the registration of the said document. Though facts in the petitions are different, but as the issue relates to unilateral cancellation of the respective settlement deed by the registration of the respective cancellation deed, which, having been negatived, is put in issue before this Court and the said issue being a legal issue, this Court is not adverting to the individual facts.

4. The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue relating to unilateral cancellation of a deed of sale was held to be bad by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India Ltd. & Ors. – Vs – Hadeeja Ammal & Ors. (2011 (2) CTC 1). It is the submission of the learned counsel that the Full Bench had not only held that unilateral cancellation of a deed of sale is invalid, but also held that a writ petition challenging the same is maintainable. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that the present petitions are not only maintainable, but in view of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, the unilateral cancellation of the deed, which has been registered by the respective registering authority is wholly invalid.

5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the above ratio laid down by the Full Bench having been consistently followed by this Court and, therefore, this Court may quash the respective order passed by the respective registering authority and direct cancellation of the cancellation deed executed unilaterally by the settlor.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent in WP No.6516/13 submitted that the