IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on Pronounced on
24.08.2022 06.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. NO.24234 OF 2015
1. K.Sudha
2. Harshithaa Shree
3. Madhumitha .. Petitioners - Vs -
1. The Sub Registrar Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. 2. R.Saraswathi Ammal (Died)
3. Nandamathi
4. R.Kosalram Pandian
5. Karthikeyan (Died)
6. Manjula Devi
7. Rathnapandian
8. Sai Sriram
9. Anna Latha .. Respondents (RR-6 to 9 substituted as LRs of Deceased RR-2 & 5 vide order dated
19.7.22 made in WMP 17924/22)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the registration of cancellation deed dated 06.11.2014 registered as Document No.4713/2014 on the file of the 1st respondent and settlement deed dated 10.11.2014 registered as Document No.4750/2014 on the file of the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to restore the settlement deed dated 13.10.2003 registered as document No.3603/2003 on the file of the 1st respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.Bhagavathi Krishnan For Respondents : Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan, Spl. GP for R-1 Mr. S.N.Ravikumar for RR-2 & 5 Mr. A.R. Balaji for R-3 Mr. D.Teackraj for R-4
ORDER
The present writ petition has questioned the legality of the registration of the cancellation deed executed by the settlor, viz., the 2nd respondent and its registration by the 1st respondent, which has resulted in the filing of the present petition.
2. The matter was reserved for orders on 24.08.2022. However, pending finalization of orders, on 2.9.2022, a Full Bench constituted for considering identical issue, viz., the legality of the cancellation deed unilaterally executed, had rendered a decision in the case of Sasikala – Vs – The Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (W.P. (MD) Nos.6889/2020, etc. Batch – Dated 2.9.2022), by answering a reference made by a learned single Judge with regard to conflicting decisions in the matter of legality of registration of cancellation deed, by holding as under :-
“41. Regarding gift or settlement: With regard to unilateral cancellation of gift deed, which is not revokable and does not come under the purview of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Registrar has no power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify the registered settlement deed. Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, reads as follows:
“126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.—The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be. A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration)
in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice.
42. Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act recognizes the power of revocation where the donor reserves a right to suspend or revoke the gift on happening of any specified event. However, the illustrations clarifies that the revocation should be with the assent of the donee and it shall not be at the will of donor as a gift revocable at the mere Will of the donor is void. The Sub Registrar cannot decide whether there was consent for revocation outside the document. If the donor by himself reserves a right to revoke the gift at his Will without the assent by donee, the gift itself is void. Since we are dealing with unilateral cancellation, the power of registration of cancellation or revocation of gift deed cannot be left to the discretion or wisdom of registering authority on facts which are not available or discernible from the deed of gift. When the power of revocation is reserved under the document, it is permissible to the registering officer to accept the document revoking the gift for registration only in cases where the following conditions are satisfied;
(a)There must be an agreement between the donor and donee that on the happening of a specified event which does not depend on the Will of the donor the gift shall be suspended or revoked by the donor.
(b)Such agreement shall be mutual and expressive and seen from the document of gift.
(c)Cases which do not fall under Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act, unless the cancellation of Gift or Settlement is mutual, the registering authority shall not rely upon the self serving statements or recitals in the cancellation deed. For example questioning whether the gift deed was accepted or acted upon cannot be decided by the registering authority for the purpose of cancelling the registration of gift or settlement deed.
43. The donor must specifically reserves such right to suspend or revoke the gift deed with the consent of donee to attract Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. Unless the agreement is mutual, expressed in the recitals, the Registering Authority cannot accept the document for registration. However, the factual allegations with regard to the accept
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.