High Court · 2025

W.P.No.39866 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.01.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHAW.P.No.39866 of 2024G.Muthukumar...PetitionerVs1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pathinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.2.The Sub Registrar Office, Pollachi No.104, Taluk Office Campus, Coimbatore Road, Pollachi – 642 001.3.Maragathamani Rameshkumar4.Deivanayagam Sekar5.The Union Bank of India, Naickenpalayam Branch, Annaimalai Taluk, Coimbatore....RespondentsPRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue Writ of declaration, to declare (A) the unilateral cancellation deed dated 18.8.2006 bearing Doc. No. 3776/ 2006 executed by late S.Gopalakrishnan as illegal void ab initio and not binding on the petitioner and to further declare the subsequent documents namely (b) Settlement deed dated 18.07.2007 bearing document no.5417/ 2007 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024executed by the said late Gopalakrishnan in favour of the 4th Respondent (c) the settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 bearing document No. 7913/ 2008 executed by the late Gopalakrishnan in favour of 4th Respondent registered on the file of the 2nd respondent, (d) the settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 bearing Document No.7914/2008 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 3rd Respondent and e) memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 18.03.2024 bearing 3381 of 2024 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent all the above documents registered on the file of the 2nd respondent as void ab initio, null and void and not binding on the petitioner.For Petitioner: Mr.M.S.SeshadriFor Respondents: Mr.C.Sathish Government Advocate ORDERThe Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:-To declare (a) the unilateral cancellation deed dated 18.8.2006 bearing Doc. No. 3776/ 2006 executed by late S.Gopalakrishnan as illegal void ab initio and not binding on the petitioner and to further declare the subsequent documents namely (b) Settlement deed dated 18.07.2007 bearing document no.5417/ 2007 executed by the said late Gopalakrishnan in favour of the 4th Respondent (c) the settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 bearing document No. 7913/ 2008 executed by the late Gopalakrishnan in favour of 4th Respondent registered on the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024file of the 2nd respondent, (d) the settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 bearing Document No.7914/2008 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 3rd Respondent and e) memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 18.03.2024 bearing 3381 of 2024 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent all the above documents registered on the file of the 2nd respondent as void ab initio, null and void and not binding on the petitioner.2.It is the case of the petitioner that his father Gopalakrishnan had purchased a land to an extent of 3000 sqft bearing Site No.8 comprised in S.F.No.100/B, patta No.4, Chinnampalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 09.09.1978. His father also purchased another site bearing No.10 under a registered sale deed dated 09.12.1981. Yet another property purchased by him was site No.10, Jothi Nagar, 'C' colony, Extension I, comprised in S.F.No.44/1, Suleswranpatti Village, Pollachi Taluk, under a deed dated 09.02.1996. All these properties were purchased out of self earnings of the said Gopalakrishnan. Thereafter, the petitioner's father had executed three settlement deeds dated 27.01.2003, wherein three properties were settled in favour of the petitioner. The settlement deeds were acted upon immediately. The said settlement 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024deeds also contain clause that the deed was irrevocable and even if such a cancellation is effective, the same is not binding on the petitioner.3.The petitioner would submit that he had also mortgaged the property by deposit of title deeds to the Andhra Bank, Sai Baba Colony Branch, Coimbatore under a deed dated 11.01.2018, which is also registered. The mortgage is subsisting to date. Therefore, the petitioner had not only taken possession but has also enjoyed the property as his own self acquired property.4.The petitioner would submit that in order to obtain a business loan the petitioner had offered two other properties as security. It was at that point that the petitioner was made aware about the cancellation of the settlement deed by his father on 18.08.2006 and the execution of another settlement deed registered as document No.5417of 2007 in favour of the fourth respondent which is registered on the file of the 2nd respondent. The fourth respondent in turn had executed a settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 in favour of third respondent. Challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 20245.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records. The learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of R1 and R2.6.The settlement deed which has been executed by the said Gopalakrishnan on 27.01.2003 is an irrevocable one. The petitioner was put in possession of the property on the date of the execution of settlement deed. The recitals of the settlement deed reads as follows:-,e;j brl;oy;bkz;l gh;jpuj;ij ehd; vf;fhuz'; bfhz;Lk; uj;J bra;tjpy;iy vd;Wk; mJkPwp ehd; uj;J bra;jhYk; mJ vt;tifapYk; bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd;Wk; cz;ikahft[k; cWjpahft[k; brhy;Yfpnwd;/7.The reasons in the cancellation deed that has been stated for cancelling the document are as follows:-nkw;go brl;oy; bkz;l; gj;jpu';fspy; fz;Ls;s ruj;Jf;fs; mKYf;F tu tpUk;ghj fhuzj;jhYk; fPH;f;fz;l brhj;Jf;fs; ,d;Dk; RthjPdk; bfhLf;fhky; vd;dplnk ,Ug;gjhYk; fPH;fz;l ,l';fspd; gl;lh ,d;Dk; vd; bgahpnyna ,Ug;gjhYk; ,d;W ,jd; K:yk; nkw;go brl;oy; bkz;l; gj;jpu';fis uj;J bra;J tpl;nld;/5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 20248.The above statement is absolutely false in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been enjoying the property as his own. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has clearly observed that the Registering Authority is not vested with the power to register a cancellation deed unilaterally. The full bench of this Court also followed the said judgment in the case of Sasikala Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 4343 and held that that the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is void ab initio and the same does not create any rights. Therefore, in the light of the above, the unilateral cancellation has to be set aside and whole documents created subsequent to the unilateral cancellation is also to be declared as illegal and void ab initio. 9.The Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. 06.01.2025Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non Speaking Orderep6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024To1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pathinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.2.The Sub Registrar Office, Pollachi No.104, Taluk Office Campus, Coimbatore Road, Pollachi – 642 001.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024P.T.ASHA , J, epW.P.No.39866 of 202406.01.20258/8

W.P.No.39866 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.01.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHAW.P.No.39866 of 2024G.Muthukumar...PetitionerVs1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pathinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.2.The Sub Registrar Office, Pollachi No.104, Taluk Office Campus, Coimbatore Road, Pollachi – 642 001.3.Maragathamani Rameshkumar4.Deivanayagam Sekar5.The Union Bank of India, Naickenpalayam Branch, Annaimalai Taluk, Coimbatore....RespondentsPRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue Writ of declaration, to declare (A) the unilateral cancellation deed dated 18.8.2006 bearing Doc. No. 3776/ 2006 executed by late S.Gopalakrishnan as illegal void ab initio and not binding on the petitioner and to further declare the subsequent documents namely (b) Settlement deed dated 18.07.2007 bearing document no.5417/ 2007 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024executed by the said late Gopalakrishnan in favour of the 4th Respondent (c) the settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 bearing document No. 7913/ 2008 executed by the late Gopalakrishnan in favour of 4th Respondent registered on the file of the 2nd respondent, (d) the settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 bearing Document No.7914/2008 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 3rd Respondent and e) memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 18.03.2024 bearing 3381 of 2024 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent all the above documents registered on the file of the 2nd respondent as void ab initio, null and void and not binding on the petitioner.For Petitioner: Mr.M.S.SeshadriFor Respondents: Mr.C.Sathish Government Advocate ORDERThe Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:-To declare (a) the unilateral cancellation deed dated 18.8.2006 bearing Doc. No. 3776/ 2006 executed by late S.Gopalakrishnan as illegal void ab initio and not binding on the petitioner and to further declare the subsequent documents namely (b) Settlement deed dated 18.07.2007 bearing document no.5417/ 2007 executed by the said late Gopalakrishnan in favour of the 4th Respondent (c) the settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 bearing document No. 7913/ 2008 executed by the late Gopalakrishnan in favour of 4th Respondent registered on the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024file of the 2nd respondent, (d) the settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 bearing Document No.7914/2008 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 3rd Respondent and e) memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 18.03.2024 bearing 3381 of 2024 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent all the above documents registered on the file of the 2nd respondent as void ab initio, null and void and not binding on the petitioner.2.It is the case of the petitioner that his father Gopalakrishnan had purchased a land to an extent of 3000 sqft bearing Site No.8 comprised in S.F.No.100/B, patta No.4, Chinnampalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 09.09.1978. His father also purchased another site bearing No.10 under a registered sale deed dated 09.12.1981. Yet another property purchased by him was site No.10, Jothi Nagar, 'C' colony, Extension I, comprised in S.F.No.44/1, Suleswranpatti Village, Pollachi Taluk, under a deed dated 09.02.1996. All these properties were purchased out of self earnings of the said Gopalakrishnan. Thereafter, the petitioner's father had executed three settlement deeds dated 27.01.2003, wherein three properties were settled in favour of the petitioner. The settlement deeds were acted upon immediately. The said settlement 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024deeds also contain clause that the deed was irrevocable and even if such a cancellation is effective, the same is not binding on the petitioner.3.The petitioner would submit that he had also mortgaged the property by deposit of title deeds to the Andhra Bank, Sai Baba Colony Branch, Coimbatore under a deed dated 11.01.2018, which is also registered. The mortgage is subsisting to date. Therefore, the petitioner had not only taken possession but has also enjoyed the property as his own self acquired property.4.The petitioner would submit that in order to obtain a business loan the petitioner had offered two other properties as security. It was at that point that the petitioner was made aware about the cancellation of the settlement deed by his father on 18.08.2006 and the execution of another settlement deed registered as document No.5417of 2007 in favour of the fourth respondent which is registered on the file of the 2nd respondent. The fourth respondent in turn had executed a settlement deed dated 20.10.2008 in favour of third respondent. Challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 20245.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records. The learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of R1 and R2.6.The settlement deed which has been executed by the said Gopalakrishnan on 27.01.2003 is an irrevocable one. The petitioner was put in possession of the property on the date of the execution of settlement deed. The recitals of the settlement deed reads as follows:-,e;j brl;oy;bkz;l gh;jpuj;ij ehd; vf;fhuz'; bfhz;Lk; uj;J bra;tjpy;iy vd;Wk; mJkPwp ehd; uj;J bra;jhYk; mJ vt;tifapYk; bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd;Wk; cz;ikahft[k; cWjpahft[k; brhy;Yfpnwd;/7.The reasons in the cancellation deed that has been stated for cancelling the document are as follows:-nkw;go brl;oy; bkz;l; gj;jpu';fspy; fz;Ls;s ruj;Jf;fs; mKYf;F tu tpUk;ghj fhuzj;jhYk; fPH;f;fz;l brhj;Jf;fs; ,d;Dk; RthjPdk; bfhLf;fhky; vd;dplnk ,Ug;gjhYk; fPH;fz;l ,l';fspd; gl;lh ,d;Dk; vd; bgahpnyna ,Ug;gjhYk; ,d;W ,jd; K:yk; nkw;go brl;oy; bkz;l; gj;jpu';fis uj;J bra;J tpl;nld;/5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 20248.The above statement is absolutely false in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been enjoying the property as his own. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has clearly observed that the Registering Authority is not vested with the power to register a cancellation deed unilaterally. The full bench of this Court also followed the said judgment in the case of Sasikala Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 4343 and held that that the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is void ab initio and the same does not create any rights. Therefore, in the light of the above, the unilateral cancellation has to be set aside and whole documents created subsequent to the unilateral cancellation is also to be declared as illegal and void ab initio. 9.The Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. 06.01.2025Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non Speaking Orderep6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024To1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pathinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.2.The Sub Registrar Office, Pollachi No.104, Taluk Office Campus, Coimbatore Road, Pollachi – 642 001.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.39866 of 2024P.T.ASHA , J, epW.P.No.39866 of 202406.01.20258/8