The unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed made by the first and second respondents is bad,
P.A.G.Kumaran vs. Inspector General of Registration,
CDJ 2017 MHC 5259
"16. In view of the fact that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed made by the first and second respondents is bad, this Court declares that the said cancellation of document, namely Deed of Cancellation of Settlement deed, registered as Document No.3328 of 2014, dated 10.11.2014, is illegal
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 62 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 126 - Indian Registration Act - Section 17, Section 18, Section 22A, Section 31, Section 32A, Section 34, Section 34A, Section 88, Section 89 - Registration Rules - Rule 55 - Declaration - Deed of Cancellation - Petitioner/Husband of third Respondent sought to declare that Deed of Cancellation, registered as Document No.3328 of 2014 on file of second Respondent/Sub Registrar, as null and void and non est in law - Hence this Petition -
Court held - In view of fact that unilateral cancellation of settlement deed made by first and second Respondents was bad, this Court declares that said cancellation of document, namely Deed of Cancellation of Settlement deed, registered as Document No.3328 of 2014, was illegal and in view of same, first and second Respondents were directed to remove entries in Register and subsequent transaction, namely settling property in favour of son of third Respondent, made pursuant to unilateral cancellation of settlement deed, was also null and void - Writ Petition was allowed.
Para: (16)
Cases Referred:
Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Hadeeja Ammal, 2011 (2) CTC 1
E.R.Kalaivan Vs. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, 2009 (4) CTC 618 (DB) : 2009 (6) MLJ 1009
City Bank N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and others, AIR 2003 SC 4630 : 2004 (1) SCC 12
G.D.Subramaniam Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Office of Konnur Sub-Registrar, Sidco Nagar, Chennai 49 & others, 2009 (1) CTC 709
Yanala Malleshwari and others Vs. Ananthula Sayamma and others, 2007 (1) CTC 97
Joseph Jayaram Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and others in W.P.Nos.6230 and 6231 of 2011, dated 02.09.2014
Renikuntla Rajamma (D) by LRs. Vs. K.Sarwanamma, 2014 (4) CTC 572 (SC)
Muppudathi Pillai Vs. Krishnaswami Pillai,1959 (2) MLJ 225 : AIR 1960 Madras 1
State of Rajasthan Vs. Basant Nahata, 2005 (4) CTC 606 : 2005 (12) SCC 77
Comparative Citations:
2017 (4) LW 523, 2017 (2) CWC 796,
Court held - In view of fact that unilateral cancellation of settlement deed made by first and second Respondents was bad, this Court declares that said cancellation of document, namely Deed of Cancellation of Settlement deed, registered as Document No.3328 of 2014, was illegal and in view of same, first and second Respondents were directed to remove entries in Register and subsequent transaction, namely settling property in favour of son of third Respondent, made pursuant to unilateral cancellation of settlement deed, was also null and void - Writ Petition was allowed.
Para: (16)
Cases Referred:
Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Hadeeja Ammal, 2011 (2) CTC 1
E.R.Kalaivan Vs. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, 2009 (4) CTC 618 (DB) : 2009 (6) MLJ 1009
City Bank N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and others, AIR 2003 SC 4630 : 2004 (1) SCC 12
G.D.Subramaniam Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Office of Konnur Sub-Registrar, Sidco Nagar, Chennai 49 & others, 2009 (1) CTC 709
Yanala Malleshwari and others Vs. Ananthula Sayamma and others, 2007 (1) CTC 97
Joseph Jayaram Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and others in W.P.Nos.6230 and 6231 of 2011, dated 02.09.2014
Renikuntla Rajamma (D) by LRs. Vs. K.Sarwanamma, 2014 (4) CTC 572 (SC)
Muppudathi Pillai Vs. Krishnaswami Pillai,1959 (2) MLJ 225 : AIR 1960 Madras 1
State of Rajasthan Vs. Basant Nahata, 2005 (4) CTC 606 : 2005 (12) SCC 77
Comparative Citations:
2017 (4) LW 523, 2017 (2) CWC 796,
Comments
Post a Comment