MUMTAZ CHELLADURAI Vs. THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition questioning the correctness of the Order dated 19.10.2015 by which the First Respondent refused to entertain the Cancellation Deed dated 15.10.2015 submitted by the Petitioner for registration. The case put forward by the Petitioner, as could be revealed from the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is that her husband was the owner of various properties and after his demise, the properties devolved upon the Petitioner and her son. One such property is comprised in Survey Nos. 286/1 to 4, 286/8B, 286/8A, 286/7, 286/5, 288/4B, 294, 293/3A, 293/2, 293/3B & 297/1A measuring 2.17 acres in Semmancherry Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. During the year 2010, the Second Respondent approached the Petitioner to convey the above said lands so that it could be developed into house sites. After deliberations, the Petitioner, her son and the Respondent herein have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. Subsequently, the Petitioner and her son have also executed two General Power of Attorney Deed dated 08.06.2011 in favour of the Second Respondent which were registered as Document Nos. 884 & 885 of 2011. As the Second Respondent failed and neglected to abide by the terms and conditions contained in the General Power of Attorney Deeds dated 08.06.2011, the Petitioner executed a Deed of Cancellation of General Power of Attorney Deed dated 30.01.2012 whereby the General Power of Attorney Deeds dated 08.06.2011 stood cancelled. Thereafter, both the Petitioner and the Second Respondent have entered into a Joint Development Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.03.2013 whereby the Second Respondent was permitted to develop the land measuring an extent of 74936 square feet out of which the Second Respondent shall sell the land to an extent of 47703 square feet i.e., 60% of undivided share. According to the Petitioner, the Second Respondent did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the subsequent contract, therefore, the Petitioner and her son have executed the General Power of Attorney Deed dated 15.10.2015 and presented it for registration with the First Respondent. On presentation of the Deed of Cancellation, the First Respondent instructed the Petitioner to put the Power Agent on notice regarding the cancellation and accordingly, the Petitioner sent a Notice dated 15.10.2015 to the Second Respondent expressing their intention to cancel the Power of Attorney Deed given to them. In spite of the same, the First Respondent refused to entertain the Deed of Cancellation of the Power of Attorney Deed dated 15.10.2015 presented by the Petitioner as though the Petitioner has unilaterally cancelled the Power of Attorney given in favour of the Second Respondent.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the reasons assigned by the First Respondent for not entertaining the Deed of Cancellation of the Power of Attorney Deed dated 15.10.2015 presented by the Petitioner are contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder. The First Respondent failed to consider that a Notice dated 15.10.2015 has been given to the Second Respondent expressing the intention of the Petitioner to cancel the Power of Attorney Deed as well as Joint Venture Agreement for violation of the terms and conditions contained thereon. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is attempting to unilaterally cancel the Power of Attorney given to the Second Respondent. In any event, even if the Power of Attorney Deed is cancelled by the Petitioner unilaterally, it is not for the First Respondent to go in to those details The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that even assuming that the Power of Attorney in favour of the Second Respondent is coupled with interest, Sections 202 & 205 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 only contemplates that before cancelling the Power of Attorney, a Notice has to be given to the agent. In this case, a Notice dated 15.10.2015 has been given to the Second Respondent and therefore, the impugned Order of the First Respondent has to be set aside. Further, none of the ingredients contained in Rule 162 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules are not attracted in this case which alone empower the Registering Authority to refuse registration of a document. In this context, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Kerala High Court in WP(C) No. 33262 of 2014 wherein it is held as follows:

(3.) Relying on the above decision of the Kerala High Court, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner prayed this Court to set aside the Order of the First Respondent and to allow this Writ Petition.