Allowed

B.Manju, v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC9 Feb 2021WP/18477/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition invoking certiorari and mandamus to quash and delete a cancellation deed of a registered settlement deed. The court held that a registered settlement deed by love and affection cannot be unilaterally cancelled and is void in law.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation deed treated as null and void; second respondent directed to delete the entry from records.

B.Manju, Vs the Inspector General of — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.02.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶4

W.P. No.18477 of 2011

¶5

G.Jamuna ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Sub-Registrar, Kanniambaadi Sub Registrar Office, Kanniambaadi, Vellore District.

¶9

Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the deed of cancellation bearing Doc. No.2741 of 2008 dated 10.12.2008 on his file which had been unilaterally executed by the third respondent and quash the same and to direct the second respondent to delete the said entry from his records.

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the deed of cancellation bearing Doc. No.2741 of 2008 dated 10.12.2008 on his file which had been unilaterally executed by the third respondent and quash the same and to direct the second respondent to delete the said entry from his records.

¶11

Brief facts that are necessary and set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are as follows:

¶12

The petitioner is the daughter of the third respondent. It is admitted that the third respondent, out of love and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affection, executed a registered settlement deed dated

¶13

04.09.2008, registered as document No.1874 of 2008, in favour of the petitioner. It is seen that no consideration was passed under the settlement deed except love and affection and the settlement deed also refers to the handing over of possession. The third respondent further declared that he has no right to change or revoke the settlement deed. After registration of the settlement deed, the third respondent presented a document for cancellation of settlement. In the said document, the reason for cancellation of the deed is stated as follows:

¶14

“,e;j brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpu Kd;dpiyapf;F tUk; brhj;J Fwpj;J vdf;F jpUg;jp , y;yhjjhYk; khw;W Vw;ghL bra;a tpUk;g[tjhYk; nkw;go 1874-2008 Kd;dpiyf;F tUk; brhj;jpid KGikahf ,uj;J bra;J tpLfpnwd;/ ,dp nkw;go 1874-2008 vz;Zs;s brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpuk; mkYf;F tuhJ/ fPH;ffhZk; brhj;jhdJ ,J ehs; tiu vd;Dila KG RthjPdj;jpy; ,Ue;J tUfpwJ/ gl;lht[k; vd; bgahpy; cs;sJ brhj;J RthjPdk; bra;J bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ ,e;jg;gof;F ehd; vd; kdr;rk;kjpapy; rk;kjpj;J vGjp itj;j brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpuj;jpd; ,uj;J gj;jpuk; ”

¶15

From the settlement deed and the facts narrated, this Court is able to see that the settlement deed is absolute and it is not subject to any condition and hence the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed executed by the third respondent is void and impermissible. It is not in dispute that the settlement deed was executed in the manner known to law and that the property was transferred by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner. The unilateral cancellation of any registered instrument is not permissible in law. After execution of the settlement deed, the third respondent does not have any right to deal with the property. It will be against settled legal principles to register such document once the title has been transfered to somebody else.

¶16

It is true that a settlement deed can be revoked as provided under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. But, this is not a case where Section 126 can be applied for revoking the instrument. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner is a void document in terms of several precedents of this Court earlier. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition has to be decided in favour of the petitioner.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and the reasons stated by the third respondent regarding cancellation of registered sale deed, this Court is convinced that such a document should be treated as document against public policy and therefore, it cannot be allowed to remain on the file of the second respondent to be an encumbrance.

¶18

Being fully satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition and the grounds raised, this Writ Petition is allowed. The cancellation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ document cancelling the registered settlement deed should be

¶19

treated as null and void. However, it is open to the third respondent to challenge the settlement deed in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bkn
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Kanniambaadi Sub Registrar Office,
Kanniambaadi, Vellore District.
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No.7338
+1cc to Mr.P.Chandrasekar, Advocate SR.No. 7420
W.P. No.18477 of 2011
JP II (CO)
A.SK(16.06.2021)

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

B.Manju, v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Manju, v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Munusamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.Radhakrishnan, Vs The District Collector

Mrs. Lakshmi Vs the District Collector

Gandhiji Podhunala Seva Vs The Chairman

Tmt.J.Dhanapackiam. Vs M.Ram Praveen

D.Gopal, Vs the Joint Sub Registrar NO.2