IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
R. Monisha (Minor) Represented by her mother & guardian Ezhilarasi, Tiruvannamalai – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Tiruvannamalai & Others – Respondents
WP. No. 15972 of 2018 & WMP. Nos. 18994 to 18996 of 2018 & 26278 of 2022
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Cancellation of Sale Deed - Property Rights - Transfer of Property Act, Section 54, Specific Relief Act, Section 31 - The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing that the unilateral cancellation of a Sale Deed by the transferor does not create, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in the property and is of no effect. The court also highlighted the conditions requisite for the exercise of jurisdiction to cancel an instrument under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The judgment of the Full Bench in Latif Estate Line India Ltd vs. Hadeeja Ammal and Sasikala vs. Revenue Divisional Officer was referenced to support the decision. The court concluded that the impugned orders were untenable and quashed the registered Sale Deeds.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed to quash the registered Sale Deeds executed by the grandfather of the petitioner in favor of the third respondent after unilaterally canceling a Settlement Deed executed in favor of the petitioner's minor daughter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unilateral cancellation of the Settlement Deed was void based on the legal provisions and judgments discussed. It concluded that the impugned orders were untenable and quashed the registered Sale Deeds.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the unilateral cancellation of the Settlement Deed and the subsequent execution of Sale Deeds by the grandfather of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal provisions under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, as well as the judgments in Latif Estate Line India Ltd vs. Hadeeja Ammal and Sasikala vs. Revenue Divisional Officer to establish that the unilateral cancellation of a Sale Deed by the transferor does not create, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in the property and is of no effect.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the registered Sale Deeds, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent registered as Document No.2864 of 2014 on 25.09.2014 and consequently the registered Sale Deeds dated 20.02.2015 and 07.08.2015 registered as Document Nos.456 of 2015 and 2315 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent''s office and quash the same.)
1. The writ on hand has been instituted to call for the records on the file of the first respondent registered as Document No.2864 of 2014 on 25.09.2014 and consequently the registered Sale Deeds dated 20.02.2015 and 07.08.2015 registered as Document Nos.456 of 2015 and 2315 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent''s office and quash the same.
2. The petitioner states that the second respondent, who is the grandfather of the writ petitioner, executed the Settlement Deed in favour of the writ petitioner minor daughter Ms.R.Monisha on 01.02.2012 settling the entire extent of land and building more fully described in the document.
4. The Settlement Deed was registered as document No.259 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent-Sub Registrar, Kadaladi, Polur Taluk in Thiruvannamalai District.
5. The second respondent after canceling the Settlement Deed executed the Sale Deed on 20.02.2015 and 07.082015 in favour of the third respondent and registered as Document Nos.456 of 2015 and 2315 of 2015 respectively on the file of the first respondent.
6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the third respondent Mr.A.Anwar died. Therefore, the petitioner has impleaded the respondents 4 to 6, who all are legal heirs of the third respondent. Notice sent to the impleaded respondents and they refused to receive the same. Therefore, the case has to be taken up for passing final orders. As far as the unilateral cancellation of Settlement Deed is concerned, it is untenable and the issues are no more res integra.
7. It is not in dispute that the second respondent-grandfather of the writ petitioner executed the Settlement Deed in favour of the minor daughter on 01.02.2012 in Document No.259 of 2012. After canceling the said document, he has further executed the Sale Deed in favour fo the third respondent.
8. This being the factum, the unilateral cancellation of Settlement Deed is void in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India Ltd vs. Hadeeja Ammal [(2011) 2 CTC 1], wherein in paragraphs 48, 54 to 59, it has been observed as under:-
“48. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act defined the word “Sale”, which means transfer of ownership by one person to another. In other words, sale is transfer of all rights, title and interest in the properties which are possessed by the transferor to another person namely, the purchaser. In case of transfer by way of sale, the transferor cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property. Such transfer of ownership must be for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Even if the whole price is not paid, but the document is executed and registered, the sale would be complete. The transfer is complete and effective upon the completion of the registration of the Sale Deed. Once the vendor is divested himself of his ownership of the property, then he retains no control or right over the said property.
54. There is no provision in the Transfer of Property Act or in the Registration Act, which deals with the cancellation of Deed of Sale. The reason according to us is that the execution of a Deed of Cancellation by the vendor does not create, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the immovable property and the same has no effect in the eye of law. A provision relating to the cancellation of a document is provided in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Old Section 39). Section 31 reads as under:
“31. When cancellatio
AI
Unilateral cancellation of a Sale Deed does not create, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in the property and is of no effect.
Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is impermissible and against public policy, as supported by the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act.
Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is not permissible and is against the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner is impermissible and liable to be set aside based on relevant legal provisions and full bench judgments.
Unilateral cancellation of a Sale Deed is impermissible under the Registration Act, 1908.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registering Authority has no power to unilaterally cancel a settlement deed, and such unilateral cancellation is void and non-est in law.
Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is void unless explicitly allowed in the document; the nature of such documents determines rights and responsibilities without ambiguity.
A settlement deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless the settlor expressly reserves such a right; otherwise, the cancellation is void.
A registered settlement or gift deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled by a revenue authority; such cancellation is only permissible under specific conditions defined in Section 126 of the Transfer of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.