Even if the plaintiff is not a party to the partition deed under Ex.A3, he can maintain a suit for declaration that the said partition deed under Ex.A3, which is under dispute, is null and void
Citation
CDJ 2007 APHC 083
Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma,
Head Note
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 2, 17, 58, 60 & 61 – Constitution of India - Article 226 – Unilateral Cancellation of Sale Deed – Validity – Power of Registrars to Register Cancellation Deeds - Whether a person who sells his property and executes a sale deed and gets it registered in terms of the Registration Act, 1908 could unilaterally cancel such sale deed and whether Sub-Registrar was bound to register such a deed? -
Court Held – By registering so-called 'Cancellation of Sale Deeds', what the Sub- Registrars are doing, in effect, is that they are cancelling the registrations made earlier and once a registration is made, the Sub-Registrar has no power under the Registration Act to cancel such a registration, as he became a functus officio - In agreement with the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Badugu Venkata Durga Rao v. Surneni Lakshmi (2001 (1) ALD 86 13) that a person who has executed a sale deed and got it registered cannot subsequently execute a document unilaterally cancelling the earlier sale deed.
(AS PER THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI)
The person, who has ex facie right whether such right is registered or not can always approach the registering authority, with a request to cancel a sale deed, which was registered earlier by such registering authority by showing that subsequent registration was obtained by fraud by a person who is not entitled to transfer the property or that such transfer was registered by playing fraud on the owner or on the stranger. In the present statutory dispensation, namely Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act, Specific Relief Act and Registration Act, the Court does not see any prohibition operating on the exercise of inherent power by the registering authority to cancel the sale deed earlier registered, which is likely to cause prejudice to the true owner as well as to the entire public at large - there are serious disputed questions of fact regarding the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation played by the vendors as well as vendees against each other, there are also questions raised regarding the competence and entitlement of a person executing the document - The parties should be relegated to the civil Court to file suit either under Section 31 or under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act - All the writ petitions are dismissed.
(AS PER THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO)
There is no prohibition under the Act for the vendor to get the cancellation deed registered. Therefore, this court cannot read the same in the statute. However, the aggrieved party can always approach competent civil court - It is also to be seen that there are many disputed questions of fact, which this court cannot delve under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further it is not as though the petitioners are without any remedy, they have alternative remedy before the competent civil court, which will be in a position to adjudicate based on the evidence both oral and documentary available on record and, therefore, when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
Para 3 & 4
(AS PER THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH)
The writ petitions are dismissed.
(AS PER THE MAJORITY)
Comparative Citations:
2007 (1) CTC 97, 2006 (6) ALD 623, 2006 (6) ALT 523, 2007 AIR(AP) 57, 2007 AIHC 1471, 2007 (5) RCR(Civil) 609, 2007 (1) CivCC 527,
Court Held – By registering so-called 'Cancellation of Sale Deeds', what the Sub- Registrars are doing, in effect, is that they are cancelling the registrations made earlier and once a registration is made, the Sub-Registrar has no power under the Registration Act to cancel such a registration, as he became a functus officio - In agreement with the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Badugu Venkata Durga Rao v. Surneni Lakshmi (2001 (1) ALD 86 13) that a person who has executed a sale deed and got it registered cannot subsequently execute a document unilaterally cancelling the earlier sale deed.
(AS PER THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI)
The person, who has ex facie right whether such right is registered or not can always approach the registering authority, with a request to cancel a sale deed, which was registered earlier by such registering authority by showing that subsequent registration was obtained by fraud by a person who is not entitled to transfer the property or that such transfer was registered by playing fraud on the owner or on the stranger. In the present statutory dispensation, namely Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act, Specific Relief Act and Registration Act, the Court does not see any prohibition operating on the exercise of inherent power by the registering authority to cancel the sale deed earlier registered, which is likely to cause prejudice to the true owner as well as to the entire public at large - there are serious disputed questions of fact regarding the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation played by the vendors as well as vendees against each other, there are also questions raised regarding the competence and entitlement of a person executing the document - The parties should be relegated to the civil Court to file suit either under Section 31 or under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act - All the writ petitions are dismissed.
(AS PER THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO)
There is no prohibition under the Act for the vendor to get the cancellation deed registered. Therefore, this court cannot read the same in the statute. However, the aggrieved party can always approach competent civil court - It is also to be seen that there are many disputed questions of fact, which this court cannot delve under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further it is not as though the petitioners are without any remedy, they have alternative remedy before the competent civil court, which will be in a position to adjudicate based on the evidence both oral and documentary available on record and, therefore, when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
Para 3 & 4
(AS PER THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH)
The writ petitions are dismissed.
(AS PER THE MAJORITY)
Comparative Citations:
2007 (1) CTC 97, 2006 (6) ALD 623, 2006 (6) ALT 523, 2007 AIR(AP) 57, 2007 AIHC 1471, 2007 (5) RCR(Civil) 609, 2007 (1) CivCC 527,
Comments
Post a Comment