2006 (10) TMI 517 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules vendor cannot cancel sale deed unilaterally with a cancellation deed; parties must address grievances in civil court.

Yanala Malleshwari and Ors. Versus Ananthula Sayamma and Ors.

The court dismissed all writ petitions, ruling that a vendor cannot unilaterally cancel a sale deed by executing and registering a cancellation deed. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed.2. Whether a Registering Officer is bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed is presented.3. Whether a writ petition is maintainable for invalidation of a cancellation deed or for cancellation of an instrument which purports to nullify a sale deed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed.The court examined the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act (TP Act) and the Indian Contract Act to determine the validity of cancellation deeds. Under the TP Act, once a sale deed is executed and registered, the vendor is divested of all rights in the property, which are transferred to the vendee. The court emphasized that a sale is a bilateral act and cannot be unilaterally canceled by the vendor. The court also noted that under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, a suit for cancellation of a deed is maintainable only when the deed is void or voidable and may cause serious injury if left outstanding. Therefore, the court concluded that a vendor cannot nullify a sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed as it would be contrary to public policy and the provisions of the TP Act and the Contract Act.Issue 2: Whether a Registering Officer is bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed is presented.The court examined the duties and powers of Registering Officers under the Registration Act. Sections 19-22, 32, and 35 of the Registration Act provide specific grounds on which a Registering Officer can refuse registration. These include situations where the document is in a language not understood by the officer, contains blanks or alterations, lacks a sufficient description of the property, or is presented beyond the prescribed time. The court noted that the Registering Officer is not empowered to inquire into the validity of the document or the rights of the parties involved. However, the court held that the Registering Officer must ensure compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act and the rules framed thereunder. If a cancellation deed is presented, the Registering Officer must verify that it meets the requirements of the Act and the rules before registering it. The court concluded that while the Registering Officer is not bound to refuse registration of a cancellation deed, the officer must ensure that the document complies with the legal requirements.Issue 3: Whether a writ petition is maintainable for invalidation of a cancellation deed or for cancellation of an instrument which purports to nullify a sale deed.The court considered whether the remedy of a writ petition is appropriate for challenging the registration of a cancellation deed. The court noted that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited and should not be exercised when there are disputed questions of fact that require evidence. The court emphasized that issues such as the validity of a sale deed, allegations of fraud, and the rights of the parties involved are matters that should be adjudicated by a civil court through a properly instituted suit. The court also observed that the existence of an alternative remedy, such as a suit for declaration or cancellation under the Specific Relief Act, is a good ground for refusing to exercise the writ jurisdiction. The court concluded that a writ petition is not maintainable for invalidation of a cancellation deed or for cancellation of an instrument purporting to nullify a sale deed, and the aggrieved party should seek redress in a civil court.Conclusion:The court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that a vendor cannot unilaterally cancel a sale deed by executing and registering a cancellation deed. The Registering Officer must ensure compliance with the legal requirements before registering a cancellation deed. The court also held that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for challenging the registration of a cancellation deed, and the aggrieved party should seek redress in a civil court.