Allowed¶49

L.Govindaraj v. The District Registrar

Madras HC19 Feb 2025WP/16684/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unilateral cancellation of sale deed; registration of cancellation deed by Sub-Registrar; writ of declaration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Full Bench judgment Latif Estate Line India Ltd. v. Hadeeja Ammal, 2011 (2) CTC 1, followed; cancellation deed unsustainable; patta mutation; Sriperumbundur Sub-Registration Office; Chengulpattu Registration District; W.A.No.592 of 2009 Full Bench batch dated 11.02.2011; writ petition allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The relief sought by the petitioner (declaration that the unilateral cancellation deed is not binding on him) is granted; writ petition allowed with no costs. ¶49

L.Govindaraj Vs The District Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.16684 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.16684 of 2020

¶7

L.Govindaraj, No.2/2, Balambigai Nagar III Street, Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089 Rep. By his Power Agent S.Vijaya Mohan

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Registrar, Chengulpattu Registration District, Chengulpattu.

¶11

2.The Sub-Registrar, Sriperumbundur Sub-Registration Office, Kancheepuram District.

3.M A Abudul Khadar

4.Badrudin Nisha

.. Respondents

(R4 impleaded vide order dated 23.09.2021 made in W.M.P.No.20720 of 2021 in W.P. No.16684 of 2020)

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶17

praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declare that cancellation deed dated --.06.1994 vide document No.2861 of 1994 on the file of 2^nd

¶18

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

¶19

1/7

¶20

W.P.No.16684 of 2020

¶21

respondent is not binding of the petitioner in view of the finding of the

¶22

Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court dated 11.02.2011 in a batch of cases in

¶23

W.A.No.592 of 2009.

¶24

For petitioner : Mr.B.Manoharan For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition pertains

¶27

to the registration of the cancellation deed dated --.06.1994, registered as document No. 2861 of 1994 on the file of the 2^nd respondent, whereby the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner dated 29.04.1994 was canceled unilaterally.

¶28

2.The petitioner purchased the subject property through registered sale deed dated 29.04.1994. Thereafter, the revenue records was also mutated and patta was issued in the name of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent without any notice, created a cancellation deed and presented it for registration before the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent entertained this document and

¶29

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

¶30

2/7

¶31

W.P.No.16684 of 2020

¶32

unilaterally canceled the sale deed which stood in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶33

3.The issue that is involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director VS. Hadeeja Ammal and others reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 . The Full Bench

¶34

of this Court after considering the entire law on the issue, held as follows:

¶35

“59.After giving our anxious consideration on the questions raised in the instant case, we come to the following conclusion:

¶36

(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 document does not create any encumbrance in the property already transferred. Hence, such

¶37

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

¶38

3/7

¶39

W.P.No.16684 of 2020

¶40

a Deed of Cancellation cannot be accepted for registration.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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 non-payment of consideration. The reason is that in such a Sale

¶43

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

¶44

4/7

¶45

W.P.No.16684 of 2020

¶46

Deed, admittedly, the title remained with the transferor.

¶47

(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.”

¶48

4.In the light of the above discussion, the cancellation deed that

¶49

was entertained by the 2^nd respondent whereby the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was unilaterally canceled is unsustainable and the relief sought for by the petitioner is granted and accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶50

19.02.2025

¶51

(2/2)

¶52

krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶53

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

¶54

5/7

¶55

W.P.No.16684 of 2020