S. PALANISAMY Vs. SUB-REGISTRAR, NALLUR, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition against the impugned order of Cancellation Deed dated 10.11.2009 executed by the second respondent, presented and registered before the first respondent as Document No.4010 of 2009.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Punja lands comprised in Survey No.263/5, 264, as per Sub-Division Survey No.264/8, Survey No.265 (as per Sub-Division Survey No.265/3B) and Survey No.266/1 (as per Sub-Division Survey No.266/1A) belonged to the petitioner's father Subramania Gounder, having purchased the same under a Sale Deed in the year 1968. The petitioner's father died intestate, leaving behind his wife, Ammani, and two daughters, namely, Mrs. Lakshmi and Mrs. Saraswathi, who are petitioner's mother and sisters respectively, and himself as legal heirs. They succeeded the estate left behind by late Subramania Gounder as per the Hindu Succession Act. After his father's death, his mother and two sisters decided to release and relinquish all their th right, title and interest over the property in his favour, for which, he agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 to all of them, each being entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000.00 from him. Accordingly, the petitioner's mother and two sisters, namely, (1) Mrs. Ammani, (2) Mrs. Lakshmi and (3) Mrs. Saraswathi, jointly executed a Deed of Release dated 23.12008, registered as Document No.5344/Bk.1 of 2008 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Nallur, the second respondent herein, releasing their th right, title and interest over the property described in the schedule thereunder. On date of execution and registration of the said Release Deed, he paid the sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 to the releasers and the receipt which was duly acknowledged in the said Release Deed. Ever since the date of execution of the Release Deed in his favour, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, all of a sudden, without giving any notice to the petitioner or any members in the family, the second respondent chose to cancel the Release Deed executed in favour of the petitioner vide a Deed of 'Cancellation of Release Deed' dated 10.11.2009, which was registered in the Office of the first respondent as Doc. No.4010 of 2009. The petitioner was not aware of the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the Release Deed executed by her along with his mother and another sister and he came to know only in Oct., 2010 and immediately, he approached the Office of the first respondent to cancel the Cancellation Deed executed by the second respondent. However, the first respondent informed that the Deed can be cancelled only by the executant and not the beneficiary. Aggrieved by the action of the first respondent in accepting the 'Cancellation of Release Deed' and registering it, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. In support of his contention that Deed of Cancellation cannot be sustained in law being against public policy, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of this court rendered in D.V. Loganathan Vs. The Sub-Registrar, reported in 2014 (3) CTC 113.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that 'Cancellation of Release Deed' dated 10.11.2009 was executed by the second respondent and registered as Document No.4010 of 2009 before the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the said registration of 'Cancellation of Release Deed' before this Court under writ proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is really aggrieved, he has to approach a competent Civil Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the second respondent relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 767.