The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition challenging the registration of a unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed. The Court ruled that such disputes involving private civil rights and factual disputes require a suit before the Civil Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, making the writ remedy inadmissible.
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 : 04.12.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.NO.30336 OF 2019
AND W.M.P.NO.30330 OF 2019
Sasikumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thiruboondi, Nagapattinam District – 611 110. ... Respondent
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned Registration of unilateral cancellation of settlement deed registered with the office of the Respondent vide Document No. 1388 of 2014, dated 15.12.2014 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhanaraman
For Respondent : Mr.M.Thamizharasan Government Advocate
O R D E R
Heard Mr.M.Santhanaraman, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.M.Thamizharasan, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
"31. When cancellation may be ordered:-
(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation."
The said statutory provision in no uncertain terms enables the Petitioner to institute suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court for the relief that has been sought in this Writ Petition.
"3. Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice
certainly needs to be strongly discouraged."
"9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, we are of the clear opinion that in a case relating to execution of a conveyance deed or a sale deed or cancellation thereof, if there is any dispute about the rights of the parties involved therein, the only appropriate remedy for the parties is to approach the Civil Court by way of civil suit. The act of registration of a document is a consequential act which will be subject to decree of Civil Court in case such a dispute arises.
expressed by this Court on the correctness or entitlement on the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
arb/maya
To
The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office, Thiruboondi,
Nagapattinam District – 611 110.
+1cc to Mr.M.Santhanaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.101278
+1cc to Government Pleader, S.R.No.101666
W.P.No.30336 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.30330 of 2019
RR(CO)
CS/02/01/2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the registration of a unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed can be entertained.
Whether the remedy of a suit under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is excluded where Section 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, is invoked.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CCE -vs- Dunlop India LimitedReferred¶24
CCE -vs- Dunlop India Limited [(1985) 1 SCC 260] · Who else cites this
P. Rukumani -vs- AmudhavalliRelied on¶28
P. Rukumani -vs- Amudhavalli
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sasikumar
The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thiruboondi, Nagapattinam District
P.D. Audikesavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
