IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Chamundeeswari & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 29571, 32480, 32481, 32673 of 2017 & W.M.P. Nos. 31822, 31823 & 31919 of 2017
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Cancellation of Settlement Deed - Unilateral Cancellation of Settlement Deed - Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act - Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the cancellation of deeds and emphasized that unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is impermissible and against public policy. The court referred to the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act to support its decision to set aside the cancellation of the settlement deed.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed to set aside the deed of cancellation of a settlement deed executed by late Mr.M.Durairaj. The petitioner's father had settled a portion of land and building through a settlement deed, which was unilaterally cancelled by the father. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation deed, claiming it was in violation of the provisions of the Registration Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed was impermissible and against public policy. It referred to legal provisions and previous judgments to support its decision to set aside the cancellation deed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed and the applicability of legal provisions related to the cancellation of deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act, emphasizing that unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is impermissible and against public policy. It referred to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court set aside the cancellation of the settlement deed and directed the 1st respondent to make necessary consequential entries in the registries within a specified period. The writ petition was allowed and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the cancellation of settlement deed 06.11.2013 executed by Late Mr.M.Durairaj and registered as Doc.5071/13 on the file of the 1st respondent, and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to delete the entries of Cancellation of Settlement deed 06.11.2013 executed by Late Mr.M.Durairaj and registered as Doc.5071/13 on the file of the 1st respondent besides deleting the further entries bearing Document No''s bearing Doc No.5072/2013, 5073/2013, 5141/2013, 5142/2013 and 5795/2013.)
1. The writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the deed of cancellation of settlement deed dated 06.11.2013 executed by late Mr.M.Durairaj and numbered as Document No. 5071 of 2013 on the file of the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner states that her father, late Mr.M.Durairaj was the owner of the land measuring 2079 sq.ft comprised in Survey Nos.366/1B and 366/2, bearing Door No.6, 3rd Thiru.Vi.Ka.Street (Narayana Maistry 2nd Street), Konnur, Chennai – 600 049.
3. The father of the petitioner, out of love and affection towards her, had settled a portion of land measuring 530 sq.ft together with building thereon out of the said 2079 sq.ft land and buildings through a settlement deed bearing Document No.2216/2013 dated 23.04.2013 on the file of the 1st respondent / Sub-Registrar Office, Konnur.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the settlement deed registered in favour of the writ petitioner has been unilaterally cancelled by her father himself and therefore, the cancellation deed is in violation of the provisions of the Registration Act. Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is impermissible and therefore, the cancellation deed is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent raised an objection by stating that the deceased father of the writ petitioner executed other settlement deeds in favour of his other daughters and those documents cannot be interfered with.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner clarified that the writ petition has been filed to cancel the deed of cancellation registered as Document No.5071 of 2013 and the petitioner has no right, whatsoever in respect of the portion of the property.
7. Issues regarding the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is no res integra and the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India Ltd. -vs- Hadeeja Amma reported in [(2011) 2 CTC 1] held as follows:-
“ 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 (O
AI
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 a Sale Deed does not create, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in the property and is of no effect.
A settlement deed cannot be unilaterally canceled unless specific revocation rights are included within the deed itself.
Unilateral cancellation of a Sale Deed is impermissible under the Registration Act, 1908.
Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is invalid without legal authority, and dismissal of a suit for default does not equate to a decree.
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.
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 fil....
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.
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.