Allowed

M.v.Kutumba Rao v. The District Registrar of Stamps and Registration

Telangana HC1 Feb 2013WP/6991/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Supreme Court held that a cancellation deed executed without notice to the purchaser and without a competent court declaration is void under Section 69 of the Registration Act. The court set aside the cancellation deed and registered such actions as void.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation deed dated 07.06.2001 set aside; writ petition allowed; no order as to costs.

M.v.Kutumba Rao Vs The District Registrar of Stamps and… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.6991 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.V.Kutumba Rao … Petitioner and The District Registrar of Stamps and Registration, Medak District at Sanga Reddy and others.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶10

W.P. No.6991 of 2008

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Questioning the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in executing the cancellation deed dated 07.06.2001 and registering the same by the respondents 1 and 2, without issuing any notice and without following any procedure, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶13

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he purchased the land to an extent of 309 square yards, situated in Survey No.334, 335, 352 of Ameenpur Village, Sanga Reddy Taluk, Medak District from the respondents 3 to 5, through a registered sale deed document No.4191 of 1987, dated 13.05.1987, for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,708/-. From the date of his purchase,

¶14

he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land.

¶15

While so, the respondents 3 to 5, without any notice to the petitioner or any information, unilaterally, after 14 years, executed a deed of cancellation on 07.06.2001 in respect of the said land and got registered the same by the respondents 1 and 2. Questioning the said action of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased the land in question on 13.05.1987 from the respondents 3 to 5 on payment of entire sale consideration and since then, he became the lawful owner of the said property. While so, without any notice to the petitioner, the respondents

¶17

3 to 5, unilaterally, executed the deed of cancellation on 07.06.2011, in respect of the said land on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the sale consideration amount to his vendors i.e. respondents 3 to 5 herein and the same has been registered by the official respondents 1 and 2, which is bad, illegal and non est in law. When the petitioner came to know about the cancellation deed, he approached the 1^st respondent and made a representation dated 24.04.2006 and for which, the petitioner was advised to approach the competent Court of law. In this regard, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not required to approach the Court of law but it is for the respondents 3 to 5 ought to have approached the Court of law for executing the deed of cancellation with due notice to the petitioner.

¶18

In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the case of THOTA GANGA LAXMI v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^[1] and submitted that it is only when a sale deed is cancelled by competent Court that cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to concerned parties, which neither official nor unofficial respondents followed in the instant case. Therefore, he submitted that the cancellation deed is liable to be set aside and consequently, the writ petition may be allowed.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents 1 and 2 would submit that at the relevant point of time, the respondents 1 and 2 have got the power to effect the registration of cancellation but by virtue of amendment, subsequent to the judgment referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the authorities are not entertaining for registration of cancellation deed.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2. Though notice is served on the unofficial respondents 3 to 5, they have not chosen to

¶21

appear before this Court either in person or through their counsel.

¶22

The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he is absolute and lawful owner of the land in question, the respondents, without his notice, executed the deed of cancellation and got registered the same on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the entire sale consideration.

¶23

As could be seen from the material on record, it is clear that the cancellation of sale deed is executed on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the sale consideration amount to his vendors i.e. to the respondents 3 to 5 herein. From a further perusal of the registered sale deed dated 13.05.1987, it is clearly made out that in view of the receipt of sale consideration of Rs.3,708/- the vendors i.e. the respondents 3 to 5 herein, do admit and acknowledge the receipt of the entire sale consideration, transferred the title in favour of the petitioner. If at all the petitioner did not pay the sale consideration, unofficial respondents have other legal course of action.

¶24

In support of the case of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case referred to above, wherein, the Apex Court held as under:

¶25

“5. In our opinion, there was no need for the appellants to approach the Civil Court as the said cancellation deed dated 4.8.2005 as well as registration of the same was wholly void and non est and can be ignored altogether.

¶26

6. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(i)(k) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, which states:

¶27

“The registering officer shall enwure at the time of preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed or conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and

¶28

that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent of orders of a competent Civil or high Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale:

¶29

Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deed by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil judge or a Government Officer competent to execute Government orders declaring the properties contained in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be Government or Assigned or Endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provisions of law.

¶30

7. A reading of the above rule also support the observations we have made above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the concerned parties. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions.”

¶31

From the above, it is clear that cancellation deed can be registered only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court that to after notice too the concerned parties. In the instant case, neither there is any declaration from the competent Court canceling the registration of sale deed made in favour of the petitioner, nor put to any notice to the petitioner to the effect that the sale deed made in his favour is going to be cancelled. Hence,

¶32

I am of the view that the registering authority acted contrary to law and therefore, both, cancellation deed as well as registration thereof, were wholly void and non est and meaning less transactions.

¶33

Under those circumstances, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and following the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, cancellation deed dated 07.06.2001 is set aside.

¶34

Consequently, in the result, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶36

Date: 01.02.2013 LSK

¶37

[1] 2012(2) SCJ 156

M.v.Kutumba Rao v. The District Registrar of Stamps and Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Kutumba Rao v. The District Registrar of Stamps and Registration

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

Rasakatla Posham Vs The District Collector

Dasireddy Hanuma Reddy, Vs Mr. Adityanat Das

M/s. Russells Institute of Spoken English Private Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Ateequr Rahman Vs The District Collector

Mohd Ateequr Rahman Vs The District Collecot

Chinthakunta Pedda Pitchi Ramireddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh