1. The present writ petitions have questioned the legality of the registration of the cancellation deed executed by the respective settlor in favour of the petitioners, who are the settlees, which have been registered by registering authority and which have been put in issue before this Court in the present petitions.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is already covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.33892/2012, etc., Batch, vide order dated 06.04.2022, in and by which this Court had dismissed all the writ petitions therein and, therefore, similar orders may be passed in the present petition as well.

3. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.14872/2022 sought to contend otherwise by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. – Vs – S.P.Velayutham & Ors. (MANU/SC/0579/2022) and submitted that not only can the High Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 , but can also cancel the act of registration of the said document. It is therefore submitted that in the present case, the settlement deed having been entertained without the presence of the settlee, which is mandatory, the registration of the document is unsustainable and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed.

4. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of (Kanniyan & Anr. – Vs – Saranya & Ors. (W.A. No.108 of 2020 – Dated 24.01.2020).

5. This Court, vide order dated 06.04.2022 in W.P. No.33892/2012, etc., Batch, while considering an issue relating to cancellation of settlement deed unilaterally, held as under :-

“64. Upon careful perusal of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Full Bench, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel in support of their respective submissions, this Court is of the considered view that held that though both the decision in Satya Pal’s case and Latif’s case (supra) relate to unilateral cancellation of a sale deed, however, the issue covered in the present batch of petitions relate to unilateral cancellation of settlement deed. Further, the decision in Satya Pal’s case (supra) spells out the correct ratio in which the relevant provisions of the has to be interpreted and, in fact, to a limited extent the decision of the Full Bench also tags with the decision in Satya Pal’s case (supra) and upon such interpretation on the basis of the ratio laid down in Satya Pal’s case (supra), this Court answers the questions formulated in the following manner :-

Question Nos.1 & 2 :

i) Whether the Registering Authority can desist from registering a cancellation deed submitted before him by the settlor alone for cancelling the registered Settlement Deed in the absence or consent of the settlee

ii) Whether the Registering Authority has the power to cancel a document vide the cancellation deed, and insist the settlor and settlee to appear at the time of registration of the document, in the absence of any provision of law

Answer :

The registering authority has no power to desist from registering a document, once it is submitted to him along with the necessary documents, which are mandated under the and once the document is properly registered, the registering authority, in the absence of any express provision under the or the Rules, is not competent to cancel the registered document.

Question Nos.3 & 4 :

iii) Whether a writ petition is maintainable questioning such registration

iv) What is the remedy available to the parties in the event of registration of a cancellation deed unilaterally by the settlor

Answer :

The writ petitions, at the instance of the petitioners are wholly misconceived and the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked seeking cancellation of the respective cancellation deeds and this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue a writ directing the registering authority to cancel the registered document, when it involves disputed questions of fact between the parties. Further, the remedy open to the petitioners/aggrieved party is only to file a civil suit before the appropriate jurisdictional court and a writ petition is not maintainable.

65. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners praying for a direction to the registering authority/respondent herein to cancel the unilaterally executed cancellation deeds in and by which the respective settlement deeds have been cancelled, cannot be entertained and, accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. It is further made clear that this Court has not entered into the realm of adjudicating the legality or validity of the cancellation deed, but has only decided the power of the registering authority to entertain the document for registration and its subsequent cancellation and, therefore, it is open to the petitioners to file appropriate suit before the jurisdictional civil court or to avail any other remedy available to them under law, where all the points raised herein could be canvassed by the petitioners and if such legal recourse is taken by the petitioners, the concerned court/authority shall take up the same on its own merits and adjudicate the dispute without in any way being influenced by any observation made by this Court in the decision supra. It is also made clear that the benefit of this order shall not operate with regard to matters, which have already been decided by this Court one way or the other and the doctrine of res judicata would stand attracted.”

6. In the present petitions as well, the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is being assailed by taking recourse to the aforesaid decisions.

7. A perusal of the decision in Kannaiyan’s case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, while following the decision of the Full Bench in Latfi’s case had set aside the settlement deed. However, this Court, even in the aforesaid decision, had distinguished the decision in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. – Vs – Hadeeja Ammal (2011 (2) CTC 1 [LQ/MadHC/2011/948] ) and had held that the said case pertains to sale deed and there is no whisper about the applicability of the said decision in a matter relating to unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed. Further, in the decision in Kannaiyan’s case (supra), the Division Bench has not adverted to the said issue, but had merely followed the said decision. With due respect to the decision of the Division Bench, this Court is not persuaded to follow the said decision, as in the considered opinion of this Court, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.

8. Insofar as the decision in Asset Reconstruction case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also dealt only with a sale deed and the matter does not pertain to unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed. However, on a broader spectrum, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given certain observations, which strengthen the findings arrived at by this Court while dealing with W.P. No.33892/12. The relevant portion of the said decision is quoted hereunder :-

“53. ……. It must be noted that when a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 finds that there was utter failure on the part of the Registering Authority to stick to the mandate of law, the Court merely cancels the act of registration, but does not declare the very execution of the document to be null and void. A declaration that a document is null and void, is exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the question whether or not the Registering Authority performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law. It is well settled that if something is required by law to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and not otherwise. Examining whether the Registering Authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise, is certainly within the jurisdiction o f the High Court under A rticle 226. However, it is needless to say that the High Courts may refuse to exercise jurisdiction in cases where the violations of procedure on the part of the Registering Authority are not gross or the violations do not shock the conscience of the Court. Lack of jurisdiction is completely different from a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly expounded that only when the High Court feels that the Registering Authority has not performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law, the High Court couold examine the issue and otherwise, the matter as to the validity of the document is exclusively with the domain of the civil court.

10. This Court is not only in consonance with the above proposition propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, but had, in fact, in its decision in W.P. No.33892/12 had only expressed the said view and had held that the Registering Authority had followed the provisions of law while registering the document and if at all any grievance is expressed, it is for the concerned party to approach the civil court to ventilate his grievance.

11. In the case on hand as well, the settlement deed presented, had been accepted for registration and, in fact, been registered following the provisions of Section 17 and 18 of the. The respective petitioner has not pointed out any infraction of the legal provisions on the part of the Registering Authority, but had merely stated that unilateral cancellation is impermissible in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Latif’s case. The decisions to that effect relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, being distinguishable and in fact, as stated above, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is more in favour of the view taken by this Court earlier, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petitions do not in any way advance any aspect new for this Court to take a different view and, accordingly, the said petitions deserve to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is open to the respective petitioner to file appropriate suit before the jurisdictional civil court or to avail any other remedy available to them under law, where all the points raised herein could be canvassed by the petitioners and if such legal recourse is taken by the petitioners, the concerned court/authority shall take up the same on its own merits and adjudicate the dispute without in any way being influenced by any observation made by this Court in the decision supra. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions filed to dispense with the production of certified copy of the respective cancellation deeds are ordered. There shall be no order as to costs.