Allowed

V.Amaravathi, W/O.Veeraiyan v. the District Registrar

Madras HC5 Dec 2024WP(MD)/17103/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD) No.17103 of 2017, The petitioner sought to cancel a unilateral cancellation deed executed by the third respondent regarding a 2011 settlement deed. Citing precedents, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the cancellation and directing necessary entries.

What did the court decide?

The unilateral cancellation executed by the third respondent is set aside, and necessary entries are to be made.

V.Amaravathi, W/O.Veeraiyan Vs the District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.17103 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.17103 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.13683 of 2017

V.Amaravathi

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The District Registrar,

¶11

Office of the District Registrar Office, Theni District,

¶12

Theni.

¶13

2.The Sub Registrar, The Sub Registration Office, Theni District.

¶14

3.Veeraiyan Chettiar ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the registration of cancellation of settlement Deed vide document No.371 of 2011 dated 14.1.2011 before the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete the entry of cancellation of

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.17103 of 2017

¶19

settlement dated in document No.371 of 2011 dated 14.01.2011 from his file.

¶20

For Petitioner : No appearance For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

¶21

For R3 : No appearance

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner had sought for to cancel the unilateral cancellation deed executed by the third respondent.

¶24

The law on this aspect had been settled by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 544 and the same had been followed by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer cum

¶25

Sub Collector reported in 2022 (3) MWN (Civil) 129 .

¶26

In view of the categorical pronouncement (stated supra) , the Writ Petition stands allowed and the unilateral cancellation executed by the third respondent is set aside. Necessary entries shall also be made in that regard.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.17103 of 2017

¶30

However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mm

¶32

05.12.2024

¶33

¶34

1.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar Office, Theni District, Theni.

¶35

2.The Sub Registrar, The Sub Registration Office, Theni District.

¶36

3/4

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.17103 of 2017

¶39

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶40

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.17103 of 2017

¶42

05.12.2024

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

V.Amaravathi, W/O.Veeraiyan v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Amaravathi, W/O.Veeraiyan v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minor Balaji,S/O.(Late) Vs the Deputy Registrar of

K.Abbas Ali Vs Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Thiru.M.G.Balan Vs the Joint Commissioner

M.Ponnuthai, Vs the Sub Registrar

Mr.K.M.R. Karthikeyan, Vs the Banking Ombudsman,O/O. the

G.Ayyarsamy Vs the District Collector