Unilateral cancellation of a sale deed without mutual consent is invalid and cannot affect the petitioner’s rights.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the absolute owner and in possession of 17 Ares of land comprised in old Survey No.289/1-2 [Re.Sy.No.533/8] of Mannankandam Village, Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District. The property was purchased by the petitioner on 01.09.1987 through Ext.P1 registered sale deed. The property was, thereafter, mutated in the name of the petitioner. This is evidenced by Ext.P2 tax receipt and Ext.P3 thandaper register. Ext.P4 is the encumbrance certificate in respect of the property, which does not show any encumbrance. The petitioner also obtained a possession certificate from the Mannankandam Village Office on 03.09.2024, a copy of which is placed for my perusal by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that Ext.P5 sale deed executed by the petitioner in respect of the very same property is not being accepted for registration on account of the fact that the person, who sold the property to the petitioner by Ext.P1 had cancelled the sale. The petitioner has, thereafter, obtained a certified copy of the so-called cancellation deed and the same has been placed on record as Ext.P7. A perusal of Ext.P7 indicates that it is a unilateral cancellation by the person who sold the property to the petitioner through Ext.P1, in the year 1987.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. ; (2016) 10 SCC 767 to contend that there cannot be a unilateral cancellation of the sale deed executed on 01.09.1987 without notice to the petitioner. It is submitted that no circumstances for unilateral cancellation of the sale deed are available in the facts of the present case and the petitioner is not even aware of the cancellation. It is submitted that the property has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the petitioner from 01.09.1987 and still continues in possession of the petitioner as can be seen from the possession certificate dated 03.09.2024.

3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader also.

The learned Senior Government Pleader also does not dispute the legal position that there cannot be a unilateral cancellation of the sale deed.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for some time, I had directed that the person who sold the property to the petitioner by Ext.P1 be made a party to the writ petition. The petitioner, accordingly, filed an impleading petition [I.A. No.1 of 2023] and the vendor in Ext.P1 was impleaded as the additional 6^th respondent to the writ petition. Notice issued to the additional 6^th respondent by special messenger has been returned with the endorsement ‘additional 6^th respondent is no more’. Though under normal circumstances, the legal heirs of the additional 6^th respondent ought to have been impleaded, I am of the opinion that such a course of action need not be adopted in the facts of this case as it is clear that only the impediment in registering the sale deed executed by the petitioner is stated to be unilateral cancellation executed by the additional 6^th respondent, which for reasons to be indicated, cannot be sustained. Since no judgment can be issued with a dead person on the array of parties, the additional 6^th respondent is suo motu deleted from the array of parties.

5. The legal issue in this writ petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner. In Satya Pal Anand v.

State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 767 it was held:-

“36. If the document is required to be compulsorily registered, but while doing so some irregularity creeps in, that, by itself, cannot result in a fraudulent action of the State Authority. Non-presence of the other party to the extinguishment deed presen