1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.11.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

W.P.No.30903 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015

M.K.Chandran .. Petitioner
Vs.

1. The Sub Registrar,

Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.

2. M.Nagarani Ammal
3. A.Gowri Bai
4. A.Jaishankar
5. M.K.Karthivelan .. Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records relating to the Deed of Cancellation dated 14.07.2014
executed by the second respondent vide Document No.1662 of 2014
on the file of the first respondent and consequent thereto, to quash
the Deed of Settlement dated 14.07.2014 executed by the second
respondent in favour of the third respondent vide Document No.1663
of 2014 on the file of the first respondent and the Deed of Settlement
dated 14.07.2014 executed by the third respondent in favour of the
fourth respondent vide Document No.1728 of 2014 on the file of the
first respondent.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 2

For Petitioner : Mr.C.P.Sivamohan

For R1 : Mr.T.M.Pappiah
Special Government Pleader

For R2 to R4 : Mr.A.Muniraj

For R5 : Mr.D.Kumaralingam

-----

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the

Deed of Cancellation dated 14.07.2014 executed by the second

respondent vide Document No.1662 of 2014 on the file of the first

respondent and consequent thereto, to quash the Deed of Settlement

dated 14.07.2014 executed by the second respondent in favour of the

third respondent vide Document No.1663 of 2014 on the file of the

first respondent and the Deed of Settlement dated 14.07.2014

executed by the third respondent in favour of the fourth respondent

vide Document No.1728 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Originally, the property belongs to one

M.Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar, who died on 26.11.1961 intestate

leaving behind him, his wife Rukmani Ammal and his son

http://www.judis.nic.in
 3

M.R.Sethuraman as his surviving legal heirs. After the death of said

Rathinasabapathy, his wife and his son inherited the subject property.

The said Rukmani Ammal died intestate and M.R.Sethuraman inherited

the subject property. After M.R.Sethuraman died intestate leaving

behind him, his wife M.Nagarani Ammal, who is the second respondent

herein as his sole surviving legal heir, since no issues to

M.R.Sethuraman and Nagarani Ammal out of the wedlock and

M.Nagarani Ammal inherited the subject property. She has executed

the Settlement Deed dated 20.05.2011 in favour of the petitioner, the

third respondent and the fifth respondent. The Settlement Deed was

accepted and acted upon by the settlee.

3. While so, the second respondent unilaterally cancelled

the aforesaid Settlement Deed, which was registered as Document

No.1089 of 2011 on 14.07.2014. Having cancelled the same, the

second respondent had executed another Settlement Deed on the

same day i.e. on 14.07.2014 in favour of the third respondent under

Document No.1663 of 2014. The third respondent, in turn, settled the

portion of the property in favour of the fourth respondent, who is her

son by Document No.1728 of 2014. Now, the Writ Petition has been

filed challenging the said unilateral cancellation done by the second

http://www.judis.nic.in
 4

respondent of the Document No.1089 of 2011.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties

and perused the materials available on record.

5. The unilateral cancellation of any settlement order has

been deprecated by this Court in several judgment.

6. It is relevant to note that a Full Bench of this Court in

Latif Estate Line India Ltd., Vs. Hadeeja Ammal [2011 (2) CTC

1], held that the unilateral cancellation of a deed cannot be done. The

Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, has also issued a circular

very recently in proceedings No.52666/C1/2018, dated 29.11.2018,

wherein, considering all the judicial pronouncements on these aspects

held that unilateral cancellation of such settlement deed without

consent of Settlee is against public policy declared in Section 126 of

the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This Circular further states that in

view of the legal position, it was classified that any Settlement Deed,

which is sought to be unilaterally cancelled by the settler is presented

for registration, registering officers shall not accept such unilateral

cancellation deeds for registration and check slip shall be issued in this

http://www.judis.nic.in
 5

regard.

7. When the Settlement Deed is unconditional and

irrevocable, the unilateral cancellation is being opposed to the public

policy. In the event, the executant of the Settlement Deed is aggrieved

by the same for having executed under coercion or undue influence, it

is for him or her to approach the Civil Court to set aside the same and

cannot unilaterally cancel it by way of deed of cancellation.

8. A Deed of Cancellation of a Settlement Deed unilaterally

executed by the transferor does not create assign, limit or extinguish

any right, title or interest in the property, which has already been

transferred. Therefore, the first respondent also ought not to have

entertained the registration of the Cancellation Deed. Immediately

after the Settlement Deed is executed, the settlee/transferee becomes

the absolute owner, as the property vests with the settlee and the

same cannot be divested by the Cancellation Deed, even with consent

of the parties. Perhaps, the proper way to re-convey the property is

by a deed of conveyance by the transferee in favour of the transferor.

Any such transfer by way of sale or settlement deed can be cancelled

at the instance of the transferor only taking re-course to the Civil

http://www.judis.nic.in
 6

Court.

9. Thus, any unilateral cancellation issued in the

knowledge of the siblings cannot be registered. Here in this case, the

first respondent has registered the Document Nos.1662, 1663 and

1728 of 2014 dated 14.07.2014 and registered unilateral cancellation

and subsequent settlement deeds without adverting to the above

principles. Hence, the said unilateral cancellation has to be cancelled

as prayed for in the petition.

10. Accordingly, the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition

calling for the records relating to the Deed of Cancellation dated

14.07.2014 executed by the second respondent vide Document

No.1662 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent and consequent

thereto, the Deed of Settlement dated 14.07.2014 executed by the

second respondent in favour of the third respondent vide Document

No.1663 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent and the Deed of

Settlement dated 14.07.2014 executed by the third respondent in

favour of the fourth respondent vide Document No.1728 of 2014 on

the file of the first respondent are quashed and the present Writ

Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,

http://www.judis.nic.in
 7

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

30.11.2018

Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No

asi

To

The Sub Registrar,

Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 8

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

asi

W.P.No.30903 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015

30.11.2018

http://www.judis.nic.in