JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Mu.Mu.A1/2219/2015 dated 28.08.2018 and quash the same. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the deed of cancellation dated 07.01.2009 executed by the 3rd respondent and registered on the file of the 2nd respondent as documents No.32 of 2009 as null and void and in consequence thereof direct the 2nd respondent to release the deed of partition dated 23.06.2020 registered as document no.975 of 2020 at once.)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to revoke the settlement deed in document No.941/2018 dated 05.12.2018 given by petitioner in favour of his son Senthur, by consider his representation dated 28.06.2020 within a time stipulated by this Court.)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the registration of the cancellation of the settlement deed executed by the 3rd respondent dated 12.3.2015 registered as Document No.701/2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal.)

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Pattents, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, filed against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.8072 of 2016 dated 24.11.2021 by this Court.)

Common Order (S.S. Sundar.J.)

Order of Reference:

While considering the scope of entertaining writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution on India against Registration of Unilateral cancellation deed, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Rukumani and others vs Amudhavalli and others reported in 2020 (1)CTC 241 held that a writ petition challenging the deed of cancellation is a misconceived remedy and set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge allowing a writ petition seeking cancellation of the cancellation deed. The Division Bench relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyapaul Anand vs State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., held that aggrieved party in such cases can approach only the civil court. Since the judgment of Division Bench in P.Rukumani's case is contrary to the full Bench in Latif Estate's case and the Division Bench has referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya paul Anand's case, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Vaidyanathan before whom the batch of writ petitions namely W.P(MD)Nos.11674 of 2015, 8330, 13297 of 2020 and 6889 of 2020 were argued, noticed the conflicting judgements and referred the matter to a larger Bench to decide the question “whether the Registrar has the power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify the deed of conveyance made earlier, when the deed of conveyance has already been acted upon by the transferee.” This is how the matter is now placed before this Bench by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

2. From the facts in the individual cases, it is seen that the writ petition namely, W.P(MD)No.6889 of 2020 does not come under the purview of reference. Though Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Vaithiyanathan, has posed several questions of law, while considering the individual cases, the issue that was referred to the larger bench is only about the Registration of Unilateral Cancellation deed to nullify the deed of conveyance made earlier. For the sake of convenience,