The Sub Registrar does not have the authority to unilaterally cancel a registered deed, and the cancellation of a settlement deed without the presence of the beneficiary is non est in law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of declaration declaring that the deed of cancellation executed by the 2nd respondent on 05.11.2014 and registered as Document No.2772 of 2014 at the office of the 1st respondent cancelling the settlement deed dated 05.05.2014 registered as Document No.1103 of 2014 at the office of the 1st respondent as null and void and that such document does not affect the petitioners right over the property being the 497 sq.ft. of land together with house therein being the middle portion of the property comprised in T.S.No.99 Block No.177 of Kodambakkam Village bearing Old Door No.26 New Door No.61 Plot No.2461 Kabilar Street MGR Nagar Chennai 78 Mambalam - Guindy Taluk Chennai measuring an extent of 138.50 Sq.M. Or 149 sq.ft.)

(1) This writ petition has been filed challenging the registration of the Cancellation Deed dated 05.11.2014 whereby the Settlement Deed dated 05.05.2014 was unilaterally cancelled by the 2nd respondent.

(2) The case of the petitioner is that he is the brother of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent came forward to execute a Settlement Deed with respect to the subject property. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the 2nd respondent in this regard. Thereafter, the Settlement Deed dated 05.05.2014 came to be executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner and the subject property was absolutely conveyed in favour of the petitioner and the possession was also handed over to the petitioner.

(3) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent unilaterally cancelled the Settlement Deed through a Deed of Cancellation dated 05.11.2014. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent ought not to have entertained the Deed of Cancellation. Aggrieved by the same, the registration of the Deed of Cancellation as Document No.2772 of 2014 has been put to challenge in the present writ petition.

(4) Heard Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ; Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.Sunny Sheen, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

(5) The issue that is involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of N.Jeevalakshmi and Another Vs. Maheswaran and Others in WA.No.984/2022 dated 24.06.2015.

(6) The Division Bench, after analysing the entire law on the issue, held as follows:-

''12. In paragraph 40, it has been specifically held that once the document is registered, it is not open for the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document and after making it clear, it was further observed that if a party is aggrieved by the registration of the document and its validity, challenge can be made before the civil court. The remedy before the civil court was thus given if somebody is aggrieved by the registration of the deed and not on cancellation of the registered deed. Rather for that, the Registrar has no power even as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand (supra) and if the Registrar still makes cancellation of the deed presented unilaterally, then the authority of the Registrar for it can be questioned by maintaining a writ petition being a legal question. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that the writ petition was maintainable and the order has not been passed going contrary to what has been held by the Apex Court.

13. The judgment in the case of P.Rukumani (supra) was against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, wherein also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand (supra) was considered. The Division Bench, however, referred the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif