The petitioner challenged the registration of a Deed of Cancellation of a Release Deed via a writ petition under Article 226. The court held that the writ remedy was improper, and the aggrieved party must seek appropriate relief in the Civil Court.
Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.2810 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
S.Palanisamy .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Sub-Registrar, Nallur, Tiruppur District. 2.Mrs.D.Lakshmi .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned Deed of Cancellation dated 10.11.2009, executed by the 2nd respondent, presented to and registered by the first respondent as Doc.No.4010 of 2009 and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.M.Arun for Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi For 1st respondent : Mr.S.Navaneethan, Additional Government Pleader For 2nd respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition against the impugned order of Cancellation Deed dated 10.11.2009 executed by the second respondent, presented and registered before the first respondent as Document No.4010 of 2009.
his wife, Ammani, and two daughters, namely, Mrs.Lakshmi and Mrs.Saraswathi, who are petitioner's mother and sisters respectively, and himself as legal heirs. They succeeded the estate left behind by late Subramania Gounder as per the Hindu Succession Act. After his father's death, his mother and two sisters decided to release and relinquish all their 3/4th right, title and interest over the property in his favour, for which, he agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to all of them, each being entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- from him. Accordingly, the petitioner's mother and two sisters, namely, (1) Mrs.Ammani, (2) Mrs.Lakshmi and (3) Mrs.Saraswathi, jointly executed a Deed of Release dated 23.12.2008, registered as Document No.5344/Bk.1 of 2008 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Nallur, the second respondent herein, releasing their 3/4th right, title and interest over the property described in the schedule thereunder. On date of execution and registration of the said Release Deed, he paid the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the releasers and the receipt which was duly acknowledged in the said Release Deed. Ever since the date of execution of the Release Deed in his favour, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, all of a sudden, without giving any notice to the petitioner or any members in the family, the second respondent chose to cancel the Release Deed executed in favour of the petitioner vide a Deed of 'Cancellation of Release Deed' dated 10.11.2009, which was registered in the Office of the first respondent as Doc.No.4010 of 2009. The petitioner was not aware of the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the Release Deed executed by her along with his mother and another sister and he came to know only in October, 2010 and immediately, he approached the Office of the first respondent to cancel the Cancellation Deed executed by the second respondent. However, the first respondent informed that the Deed can be cancelled only by the executant and not the beneficiary. Aggrieved by the action of the first respondent in accepting the 'Cancellation of Release Deed' and registering it, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. In support of his contention that Deed of Cancellation cannot be sustained in law being against public policy, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of this court rendered in D.V.Loganathan v. The Sub-Registrar, reported in 2014 (3) CTC 113.
he has to approach a competent Civil Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the second respondent relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 767.
advised, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
sd/
Assistant Registrar(CO)
/true copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
asvm
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Nallur, Tiruppur District.
+1cc to Government Pleader Sr.No.2230
+1cc to Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi, Advocate SR.No.1802
+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate SR.No.1760
W.P.No.2810 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
PPA(CO)
GN(01/03/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Writ of Certiorari is the appropriate remedy to contest the registration of a Deed of Cancellation of a Release Deed before a Sub-Registrar.
Whether a Registering Officer is bound to register a cancellation deed if the provisions of the Registration Act are satisfied.
Whether an aggrieved party must approach the Civil Court rather than file a Writ Petition regarding the validity of a registered cancellation deed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D.V.Loganathan v. The Sub-RegistrarReferred¶13
D.V.Loganathan v. The Sub-Registrar, reported in 2014 (3) CTC 113
Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and othersFollowed¶16
Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2016 SCC 767 · Who else cites this
Yanala MalleshwariReferred¶18
Yanala Malleshwari, AIR 2007 AP 57 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Palanisamy
The Sub-Registrar, Nallur
Mrs.D.Lakshmi
D.Krishnakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
