Allowed

Tirougnanasamandamourtty Selva v. The Union of India

Madras HC6 Jun 2023WP/15864/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging unilateral cancellation of sale deeds were allowed. The court held that such deeds are invalid and directed the Sub-Registrar to cancel them, relying on the Full Bench judgment in M/s.Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Hadeja Ammal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed; Sri 2nd respondent directed to cancel unilateral cancellation deeds and effect necessary entries.

Tirougnanasamandamourtty Selva Vs The Union of India — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.15864 to 15871 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.Nos.15864 to 15871 of 2015

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.Nos.1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2015

¶9

W.P.No.15864 of 2015:

¶10

Tirougnanasmandamourtty Selva

¶11

... Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Union of India

¶14

Represented by the Collector Puducherry Revenue Department Revenue Complex, Saram Puducherry.

¶15

2.The Sub-Registrar Office of Sub-Registrar District Registration Office Puducherry.

¶16

3.Mr.Francine Antonie Mrie Joseph Lourdes

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertains to cancellation deed dated 29.01.1996 executed by third respondent unilaterally and registered as document No.1289 of 1996 on the file of second respondent and

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.Nos.15864 to 15871 of 2015

¶22

to quash the same as highly illegal.

¶23

For Petitioners	: No Appearance (in 8WPs)
For R1 & R2	: Dr.B.Ramaswamy Additional Government Pleader [Puducherry] (in 8WPs)
For R3	: No Appearance (in 8WPs)

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

The writ petitions are filed challenging the unilateral cancellation of

¶26

the Sale Deed executed on the file of the Sub Registrar, Puducherry.

¶27

It is not in dispute that the Sale Deeds were registered in favour of the writ petitioners and the said Sale Deeds were unilaterally cancelled by the 3^rd respondent by executing a cancellation deed. Issues regarding unilateral cancellation of documents are no more res integra. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Hadeeja

¶28

Ammal reported in 2011 (2) CTC) 1 has settled the principles as follows:

¶29

“(i) A deed of cancellation of a sale unilaterally executed by the transferor does not create, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the property and is of no effect. Such a

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.Nos.15864 to 15871 of 2015

¶33

document does not create any encumbrance in the property already transferred. Hence such a deed of cancellation cannot be accepted for registration.

¶34

(ii) Once title to the property is vested in the transferee by the sale of the property, it cannot be divested unto the transferor by execution and registration of a deed of cancellation even with the consent of the parties. The proper course would be to reconvey the property by a deed of conveyance by the transferee in favour of the transferor.

¶35

(iii) Where a transfer is effected by way of sale with the condition that title will pass on payment of consideration, and such intention is clear from the recital in the deed, then such instrument or sale can be cancelled by a deed of cancellation with the consent of both the parties on the ground of nonpayment of consideration. The reason is that in such a sale deed, admittedly, the title remained with the transferor.

¶36

(iv) In other cases, a complete and absolute sale can be cancelled at the instance of the transferor only by taking recourse to the Civil Court by obtaining a decree of cancellation of sale deed on the ground inter alia of fraud or any other valid reasons.”

¶37

In view of the Full Bench judgment (cited supra ), the impugned unilateral cancellation deeds are to be cancelled.

¶38

Page 3 of 5

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.Nos.15864 to 15871 of 2015

¶41

Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent is directed to cancel the unilateral cancellation deeds dated 29.01.1996 executed by the 3^rd respondent and effect necessary entries in the encumbrance and in all other registers concerned.

¶42

5. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶43

06.06.2023

¶44

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes To

¶45

1.The Collector The Union of India Puducherry Revenue Department Revenue Complex, Saram Puducherry.

¶46

2.The Sub-Registrar Office of Sub-Registrar District Registration Office Puducherry.

¶47

Page 4 of 5

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.Nos.15864 to 15871 of 2015

¶50

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶51

Jeni

¶52

W.P.Nos.15864 to 15871 of 2015

¶53

06.06.2023

¶54

Page 5 of 5

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tirougnanasamandamourtty Selva v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirougnanasamandamourtty Selva v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Rajalakshmi, Vs the Inspector General of

S.Alagammai Vs the State

M.Dhanapal Vs the Secretary

K.Revathi, Vs The Sub Registrar

G.Subburaj, Vs The Inspector General

K.Madhavan, Vs The Principal Secretary cum