The petitioner sought cancellation of a settlement deed executed in favour of his wife and son. Relying on a Full Bench decision, the Court held unilateral cancellation is impermissible and dismissed the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed with preservations of rights; no costs.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.02.2019 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.4449 of 2019
B.Bala Poisollan
... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhom High Road,
Chennai-28.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Thoothukudi Keezhur Sub-Registrar Office,
Thoothukudi – 628 001.
Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated --.02.2019 by taking note of the Circular No.52666/C1/2018 dated 29.11.2018 issued by the first respondent within a time that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthumalairaja
For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan
Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The petitioner had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife and his son. He now wants to unilaterally cancel the same. He therefore has given a representation in this regard to the second respondent. He wants the second respondent to consider the same in terms of the circular bearing No.52666/C1/2018 dated 29.11.2018 issued by the first respondent.
3.The Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 in the case of Latif Estate Line India Limited vs Hadeeja Ammal had held that unilateral cancellation is not permissible in law. The remedy of the writ petitioner is elsewhere and no relief can be granted in this writ petition.
4.Preserving the rights of the writ petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar ()
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
2
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhom High Road,
Chennai-28.
2.The Sub-Registrar, Thoothukudi Keezhur Sub-Registrar Office, Thoothukudi – 628 001. Thoothukudi District.
+1cc to Mr.S.Muthumalairaja, Advocate, SR.No. 50363 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 50552
W.P.(MD)No.4449 of 2019 27.02.2019
PNN KK/SAR-/25.03.2019/2P-5C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed executed in favour of family members is permissible under law.
Whether the representation dated --.02.2019 by the petitioner can be considered in terms of Circular No.52666/C1/2018.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Latif Estate Line India Limited vs Hadeeja AmmalReferred¶21
2011 (2) CTC 1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B.Bala Poisollan
Inspector General of Registration
Sub-Registrar, Thoothukudi
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
