The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a document is registered, it cannot be cancelled by the Sub-Registrar unilaterally, and the appropriate remedy for disputes on facts and the rights of the parties is a civil suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 19.1.2022 passed in W.P.No.22019 of 2021.)

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.

This writ appeal has been filed to challenge the order dated 19.1.2022, by which a challenge to the cancellation of a registered document was accepted.

2. It was a case that a settlement deed was submitted for registration with the Sub-Registrar, Arakonam and has been registered. However, after registration of the document, the settlor cancelled the settlement deed unilaterally. It was cancelled and challenged by an aggrieved party i.e. the writ petitioner/non-appellant. The challenge was accepted by the learned Single Judge finding that once a document is registered, the Sub-Registrar has no power to cancel the registration.

3. The appeal has been filed to challenge the order mainly on the ground that the challenge to the cancellation of registration by the Sub-Registrar could not have been made by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid, remedy lies before the civil court. But ignoring the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge interfered in the cancellation of the registration by the Sub-Registrar. To support the argument, reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 10 SCC 767 has been given, wherein certain issues were framed by the Apex Court for its answer and one of the issues was as to whether a writ petition would be maintainable to challenge the registration of the document and it was held that once a document is registered, it cannot be assailed by maintaining a writ jurisdiction. Rather for that, jurisdiction would be available to the civil court and, accordingly, the party aggrieved by registration of the document can invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court. Reference of the questions framed by the Apex Court and its answers has been given to submit that the order in question by the learned Single Judge is in ignorance of the aforesaid.

4. A further reference of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Rukumani and others v. Amudhavalli and others [W.A.No.229 of 2018, decided on 17.07.2019] has been given, wherein the same view was considered by this Court. Accordingly, a prayer is made to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the materials available on record.

6. The facts on record show that a property comprised in Survey No.207/9, T.S.No.60 in Ward-B, Block-15 to an extent of 1260 square feet in Srinivasan Street, Stuartpet, Arakonam Town owned by the writ petitioner's father was settled in favour of the writ petitioner/non-appellant by an irrevocable deed of settlement dated 8.4.2009 registered vide Document No.3524 on the file of the second respondent. After execution of the settlement deed, the settlor expired on 5.7.2021. After his demise, the writ petitioner/non-appellant came to know that the settlement deed dated 8.4.2009 executed by his father was cancelled by way of unilateral cancellation deed of settlement dated 13.5.2015. On the same day, a Will was executed by the father of the writ petitioner/non-appellant in favour of the writ petitioner/non-appellant and two others.

7. Challenge to the cancellation of the settlement deed was made mainly on the ground that once a deed is registered, the Sub- Registrar has no power to cancel it and, that too, unilaterally without causing a notice to the party. To support the argument, reference of the judgment of a Division Bench in the case of D.V.Loganathan v. The Sub Registrar, Pallavaram, Chennai and another, 2014 (3) CTC 113 was given and, accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with liberty to the appellants to approach the civil court, if they are so aggrieved by the settlement deed registered in favour of the w