Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MADA RAJESH, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT – Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY, STAMPS & REGISTRATION DEPT., HYD & 8 OTHERS – Respondent
WP/17871/2016
REGISTRATION ACT - CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED - JURISDICTION OF SUB-REGISTRAR - The Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to register a cancellation deed of a previously registered sale deed unless it is executed by all the executants and claimant parties to the previously registered sale deed and is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered sale deed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to declare the sale deeds obtained by the respondents as null and void, alleging that the General Power of Attorney given to the 7th respondent did not give him the absolute right to sell the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to register a cancellation deed of a previously registered sale deed unless it is executed by all the executants and claimant parties to the previously registered sale deed and is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered sale deed.
Issues: Whether the Sub-Registrar has jurisdiction to register a cancellation deed of a previously registered sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, provides that the Sub-Registrar shall ensure that cancellation deeds of previously registered sale deeds are executed by all the executants and claimant parties to the previously registered sale deed and are accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered sale deed.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court.
Key Points: - The Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to register a cancellation deed unless executed by all executants and claimant parties and accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent court or government (!) (!) (!) - Rule 26(k)(i) requires cancellation deeds to be executed by all parties and to include a declaration or orders from a competent court or government; exceptions exist when cancelled by a Civil Judge or government officer for non-registerable lands (!) (!) (!) (!) - The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court; no notice to parties and no declaration by a competent court render cancellation deeds void (!) (!) - The case involves a petition to declare sale deeds obtained by respondents null and void due to purported improper powers; court emphasizes jurisdictional and procedural requirements for cancellation deeds (!) (!) (!)
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandmus, declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 3rd to 6th respondents in supporting the 7th, 8th & 9th respondents to deal with land an extent of Ac.1.40 cents out of Ac.5.90 cents in Sy.No.275/1, Patta No.678 of Paravathipuram Village of Vizianagaram District by making false entre in the 1B Registrar (ROR) contrary to the Settlement Fair Adangal, without issung any notices under Section 53 of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the of Transfer of Property Act, the Provisions of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Provisions of the Registration Act and consequently to direct the 3rd to 6th respondents to take necessary action against the 7th, 8th & 9th respondents for their illegal acts towards the land an extent of Ac.1.40 cents out Ac.5.90 cents in Sy.No.275/1, Parvathipuram Village, Viziangaram District by setting the enter in 1B Registrar(ROR) for the land an extent of Ac.1.40 cents out of Ac.5.90 cents in Sy.No.275/1, Patta No.678 of Parvathipuram Village of Viziangaram District by declaring the sale deeds obtained 7th, 8th & 9th respondents as null and void…”.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the subject property was partitioned ancestrally by virtue of Partition Deed, dated 16.03.1983 by the petitioner’s grandfather. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father got the B- Scheduled Property and all the four sons of the petitioner’s grandfather had shares in Sy.No.275/1 admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 5.90 cents; each brother got share of an extent Ac.1.40 cents. Then, on 16.11.1994, petitioner’s grandfather executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the 7th respondent herein. After the death of the petitioner’s grandfather, his four sons were ready to execute Registered Sale Deeds before the Sub- Registrar of Parvathipuram as and when required, upto 23.10.2012, neither the 7th respondent nor his authorized person obtained any Registered Sale Deeds from the four sons of the petitioner’s grandfather. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the said GPA has not given any absolute right to the 7th respondent for selling off the property, and therefore, requested this Court to declare the sale deeds obtained by the 7th, 8th and 9th respondents herein as null-and-void. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record.
4. On a perusal of the material placed on record and recording the submissions of both the learned counsel, it appears that the main claim of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is to declare the sale deeds obtained by the respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 as null-and-void, for which the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction as per Rule 26 (k) (i) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as follows:-
“i)The registering officer shall ensure at the time of preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale:
Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a government officer competent to execute government orders declaring the properti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
