AMUDHAVALI & ORS. versus P. RUKUMANI & ORS. on 7 December 2021

1. Leave granted.

2. This civil appeal is filed, aggrieved by the judgment and orderdated 17.07.2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.229 of 2018 by the HighFCourt of Judicature at Madras. By the aforesaid order, the intra-courtappeal preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein was allowed by settingaside the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P. No.6329 of2009.

3. The respondent nos.1 to 4 herein who were original owners ofGthe land covered by S.F. No.246/1 of Kalapatti Village, GandhipuramSub-Registration District of Coimbatore, have executed a registeredpower of attorney in favour of respondent no.7. The appellants claimthat, they have purchased the said land admeasuring Acs.3.46 centsfrom the respondent Nos.1 to 4, vide registered sale deed dated09.03.2005, executed by their Power of Attorney, i.e. respondent no.7.H

Subsequently, the respondent nos.1 to 4 prepared the Cancellation Deedon 09.03.2005 and got it registered on 20.09.2007. After registration ofsuch deed, respondent nos.1 to 4 also filed a civil suit to declare the saledeed dated 09.03.2005 executed in favour of the appellants, as illegal,void and non est. Subsequent to registration of cancellation deed, anextent of 0.25 cents of land was transferred by registered sale deeddated 27.02.2009, in favour of respondent no.8.

4. Questioning the cancellation deed and alleging interference withpossession, the appellants herein have filed Writ Petition No.6329 of2009 before the High Court. Mainly it was the case of the appellantsthat once the sale is effected by way of a registered sale deed, respondentnos.1 to 4 could not have cancelled the sale deed unilaterally and get itregistered.

5. Respondent nos.1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit in the writpetition before the High Court. It was their case that writ petition, asfiled, was not maintainable due to delay and laches as the same wasfiled in the month of March 2009, whereas the cancellation deed wasregistered on 20.09.2007. It was also their case that after cancellation,they have issued notice to the appellants and inspite of the same noimmediate steps were taken and the appellants are already contestingthe suit i.e. O.S. No.142 of 2008, which is pending on the file of III[rd]Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, in which written statement isalready filed.

6. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by orderdated 07.09.2017 mainly on the ground that once the sale deed isexecuted, the land stood transferred to the appellants and unless there isa consent of the appellants, no cancellation deed could be registered.Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent nos.1to 5 have preferred intra-court appeal in Writ Appeal No.229 of 2018,and same is allowed by impugned judgment, by setting aside the order ofthe learned Single Judge.

7. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that civilsuit filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 in O.S. No.142 of 2008 fordeclaration and cancellation of the sale deed dated 09.03.2005 is alreadypending consideration and rights of the parties will be adjudicated in thepending suit. The Division Bench of the High Court was of the view thatin view of factual disputes, Learned Single Judge could not haveentertained petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

AB

C

DE

F

GH

8. Heard Sri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for theappellants; Sri V. Chitambresh, learned senior counsel appearing forrespondent Nos.1 to 4; Sri C.K. Sasi, learned counsel for the State; andSmt. Anitha Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondentNo.8.

A

B9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we haveperused the impugned judgment and other material placed on record.

10. Mainly it is contended by learned senior counsel Sri K.V.Viswanathan that the High Court has relied on the judgment of this Courtin the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1 ]andCallowed the appeal, but same is distinguishable on facts of the presentcase. It is further submitted that once the property is transferred byregistered sale deed, unilateral cancellation of such deed is void, non estand is opposed to public policy. It is submitted that registration of such adeed is not recognised under the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908and if such unilateral cancellation deeds are allowed to be registered, itDwill cause grave prejudice and injustice to bona fide purchasers. Learnedcounsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Thota GangaLaxmi & Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.[2], in supportof his case. By referring to complaint filed against the respondent nos.1to 4, it is submitted that there was no delay and laches on the part of theEappellants in approaching the High Court.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri Chitambresh, appearingfor respondent nos.1 to 4 has submitted that subject matter of this appealis squarely covered and is to be dismissed, in view of the judgment ofthis Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand[1]. Referring to paragraphFNo.38 of the judgment in the case of Satya Pal Anand[1], learned seniorcounsel has submitted that absence of the party to the extinguishmentdeed cannot be said to be a fraudulent action per se. Referring to thejudgment in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi[2], it is submitted that samecannot be applied to the facts of the case and said judgment is renderedin view of specific rule which was applicable to State of Andhra Pradesh.GIt is submitted, after cancellation, when the suit is filed by respondentnos.1 to 4 the appellants have already filed their written statement andcontesting the matter, and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

1 (2016) 10 SCC 767

2 (2010) 15 SCC 207

H

12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.8 has submittedthat respondent no.8 is a subsequent bona fide purchaser, to an extent of0.25 cents of the disputed land. It is submitted that as he is a bona fidepurchaser he cannot be deprived of the said land for no fault of him.

13. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the HighCourt, it is clear that the said judgment is rendered mainly relying on thejudgment of this Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand[1]. The aforesaidcase relates to allotment of a site by a co-operative society and on theground that the condition of allotment is violated by not constructinghouse within the time frame, and the original allottee has breached thecondition, co-operative society has cancelled the allotment andsubsequently executed an extinguishment deed. In the aforesaidjudgment, it is held that the original allottee has also entered intocompromise with subsequent purchasers of the land and notwithstandingthe same, he has raised dispute under Section 64 of the Madhya PradeshCooperative Societies Act, 1960. When the dispute was pending on thevery same cause of action, writ petition was filed. When the originalpurchaser has approached the Sub-registrar for cancellation of acancellation deed, the registering authority by a speaking order hasrejected the same on two grounds, i.e., firstly, dispute was pendingbetween the parties in the Civil Court; and secondly on the ground that ithad no jurisdiction to cancel the registration of a registered document.

14. In the case on hand it is not in dispute, that after registeringthe cancellation deed, respondent nos.1 to 4 have filed a civil suit whichis pending in O.S.No.142 of 2008, seeking declaration that sale deeddated 09.03.2005 executed in favour of the appellants is null and void. Inthe said suit the appellants have already filed written statement. Thelearned Single Judge of the High Court also observed that the subsequentcancellation deed is always subject to adjudication of rights of the partiesby the competent civil court. As much as the appellants have alreadyfiled a written statement in the civil suit in O.S. No.142 of 2008, andcontesting the same, we are not inclined to examine the validity andeffect of such cancellation deed, at this stage, by interfering with theimpugned order of the High Court.

15. It is settled legal position that registration of document is alwayssubject to adjudication of rights of the parties by the competent civilcourt. Had the appellants not entered their appearance by filing a writtenstatement, it would have been a different situation. It is also to be noted A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athat subsequent to registration of cancellation deed, a portion of the landis transferredto respondent no.8, to an extent of 0.25 cents.

16. Having regard to the fact that the suit in O.S. No.142 of 2008on the file of III[rd] Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore is pendingon the same subject, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugnedBorder and examine the validity of cancellation deed. As we are of theview that the rights of the parties will be subject to adjudication in CivilSuit in O.S. No.142 of 2008, it is not necessary to delve in detail tovarious contentions advanced by the learned counsels on both sides.

17. We dispose of this civil appeal by observing that rights of theCparties with regard to the land in question will be governed by the judgmentin pending suit in O.S. No.142 of 2008 on the file of the III[rd ]AdditionalSubordinate Court, Coimbatore. The civil suit shall be decided on itsown merits. The parties are directed to maintain status quo with regardto possession existing as on today till the disposal of the suit. The Suit inO.S.No.142 of 2008 is to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible,Dpreferably within a period of one year. The civil appeal is disposed ofwith directions as indicated above. No order as to costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeal diposed of.

E

F

G

H