AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—Writ Appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court made in W.P. No. 36093 of 2007 dated
19.2.2009.
This writ appeal raises an important question as to whether the Registrar, who is empowered to register the documents under the Indian
Registration Act, could register a document unilaterally executed by the vendor cancelling the earlier sale made.
The facts leading to the above issue arise on the following circumstances:
By a registered Document No. 81 of 2001 dated 5.2.2001 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Kalaiyarkoil, the appellant sold an extent of 0.90 cents
to one Kannathal, Wife of (late) Ramasamy Konar of Aralikottai Village. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Sub-Registrar for
registration of a deed of cancellation dated 6.1.2006 on the ground the sale deed is not supported by consideration. It appears that the Registrar
was reluctant to entertain such a document and refused to register the same apparently on the ground that the cancellation deed was sought to be
registered without there being a consent from the purchaser. Hence, the appellant approached the Inspector General of Registration. The Inspector
General of Registration issued a circular dated 5.10.2007, whereby all Deputy Inspector Generals of Registration, District Registrars and all Sub-
Registrars were directed that the deed of cancellation should bear the signatures of both the vendor and the purchaser. This circular came to be
challenged before this Court and by the impugned order, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, the present writ appeal.
We have heard Mr. K.Bijai Sundar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader for the
respondents.
Mr. K.Bijai Sundar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in the absence of any provision, the Registrar cannot refuse
to register a deed even in case of a deed of cancellation. In this regard, he would submit that the State has inserted the provisions of Section 22A
to the Registration Act by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1994 (for short, ""the Act""). By that provision, the Registrar was
restrained from registering a cancellation deed in the absence of both the parties to the document. He would submit that the said provision was
questioned before a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Captain Dr. R. Bellie and Dr. Smt. Seetha Bellie Vs. The Sub Registrar, and
the said provision was struck down on the ground that the State Legislature had not laid down any guidelines defining ""public policy"" or documents
which are ""as opposed to public policy."" He would also submit that the G.O.Ms. No. 150, Commercial Taxes Department dated 22.9.2000
issued pursuant to the amended provisions of Section 22A was also set aside.
He would also rely upon the subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 139, Commercial Taxes and Registration (J1) Department dated 25.7.2007 issued
pursuant to the order of the Division Bench in Captain Dr. R.Bellie''s case (supra). Placing reliance on the above judgment as well as the
notification, he would submit that the cancellation of sale deed without express consent of parties to the document is one of the categories referred
to in the Government Order dated 22.9.2000. Hence, when this Court in Captain Dr. R.Bellie''s case declared the amended provision of Section
22A of the Act is null and void and the consequential Government Order dated 22.9.2000 came to be set aside, the Registrar cannot refuse to
register a deed of cancellation of sale deed on the ground that no consent of purchaser was obtained and that too, in the absence of any specific
provision for the insistence of consent from the purchaser. He would also submit that inasmuch as the said Division Bench judgment was rendered
following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Basant Nahata, and a similar order of the Division Bench made
in Writ Appeal No. 1923 of 2005 dated 16.11.2005 dismissing the appeal preferred by the State on the very same issue, the appellant must
succeed and the appellant should be declared to be entitled to present the document of cancellation of sale deed for registration.
On the other hand, Mr. J.Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader would submit that a similar question came up for consideration before
this Court in Writ Appeal No. 194 of 2009 and by judgment dated 1.4.2009, this Court held that such a registration of cancellation deed cannot
be entertained in the absence of the signature of the purchaser and in that view, the deed of cancellation was set aside by the Division Bench. He
would also rely upon the subsequent Division Bench judgment dated 23.6.2009 in Writ Appeal No. 789 of 2009 taking the same view. He would
further submit that in fact an amendment was made by inserting Section 34A to the Act and by that amendment, no document for sale of the
property shall be registered, unless the person claiming under the document shall also sign in such document. He would submit that though the
amended provision of Section 22A of the Act was struck down and the circular issued in terms of the said amendment was also set aside by this
Court, in the absence of any provision empowering the Registrar to entertain such a document for cancellation, there is nothing wrong in the
Inspector General of Registration issuing a circular making it compulsory for both the vendor and the purchaser to sign the document. He would
also submit that by the circular dated 5.10.2007, the Inspector General of Registration has directed that whenever cancellation of sale deeds are
sought to be registered and only the vendor signs the document, without the signature of the purchaser, entertaining such a document is not a
proper procedure for registration. That circular was issued in terms of Section 34A of the Registration Act.
We have given our anxious thought to the rival contentions. In Basant Nahata''s case, the Supreme Court, of course, on a challenge to the
amended provision of Section 22A by the State of Rajasthan, had struck down the said provision on the ground that the word ""public policy"" was
not defined and the essential function of the legislature to decide what is public policy cannot be delegated to the executive through subordinate
legislation. In fact, a similar amended provision of Section 22A by the State of Tamil Nadu was considered by a Division Bench in Captain Dr.
R.Bellie''s case and on the same reason, the said Section was also struck down.
From the above judgments, all that we could read and understand is that in the absence of any guidelines defining what is ""public policy"" or
documents which are ""as opposed to public policy"", the Courts had to declare Section 22A is null and void. In our opinion, a reading of those
judgments does not indicate that by the judgments it is also directed that a registration of a cancellation deed is permissible even in the absence of
both the parties before the Registrar. The question as to whether such documents can be entertained should be considered in the light of the other
provisions of the Act as well.
We may little bit elaborate on this. The Government of Tamil Nadu inserted Section 22A to the Registration Act empowering the State
Government by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette to declare the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed
to public policy. In exercise of the said power, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 150, Commercial Taxes Department dated 22.9.2000, which
needs the full extraction and is as follows:
In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), the Governor of
Tamil Nadu hereby declares the following documents as opposed to public policy, namely,
(1) Any instrument relating to:
(i) conveyance of properties belonging to the Government or the local bodies such as the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority or
Corporations, or Municipalities, or Town Panchayats or Panchayat Unions, or Village Panchayats; or
(ii) conveyance of properties belonging to any religious institution including temples, mutts or specific endowments managed by Hereditary
Trustees/Non Hereditary Trustees appointed to any religious institutions under a Scheme settled or deemed to have been settled under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) and mutts and temples
including specific endowments attached to such of those temples managed by mutts; or
(iii) conveyance of properties assigned to or held by
(a) the Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board established u/s 3 of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958 (Tamilnadu Act XV of 1958); or
(b) the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board.
Unless a sealed No Objection Certificate is issued by the competent authority as provided under the relevant Act or the rules framed thereunder
for this purpose and in the absence of any such provisions in any relevant Act or the rules framed thereunder authority authorised by the
Government to the effect that such registration is not in contravention of the provisions of the respective Act is produced before the registering
officer.
(2) conveyance of lands converted as house sites without the approved layouts unless a No Objection Certificate issued by the authority
concerned of such local bodies namely, Corporation or Municipalities or Town Panchayats, Pachayat Unions, or Village Panchayats, or Chennai
Metropolitan Development Authority is produced before the registering officer.
(3) cancellation of sale deed without the express consent of the parties to the documents.
Section 17 of the Act deals with documents where registration is compulsory and Section 18 deals with the documents where registration is
optional. A reading of Section 17(b) shows that a deed of cancellation of sale falls within the purview of that Section, since such document
declares no right and title of immovable property. As the said document is compulsorily registrable, some restrictions must be applied for
cancellation of such document as well.
In this content, we may also refer to Section 32A of the Indian Registration Act providing that all such deeds shall be signed by the vendor as
well as the purchaser and the same shall also bear the finger prints and photographs. Section 34 of the Act also needs a reference, whereby the
Registering Authority is mandated to hold an enquiry in respect of the validity of the document presented for registration. Having regard to the
above provisions, in our opinion, a registered sale deed, if sought to be cancelled, registration of such deed must be at the instance of both the
parties viz., bilaterally and not unilaterally. Section 34A of the Act, whereby the Registering Authority is to enquire whether or not such document
was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. A sale is essentially an executed contract between two parties on mutal
agreed conditions. Question is as to whether such contract can be unilaterally rescinded, particularly, in a case of sale deed. In this context, we
may refer to Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides that contract which need not be performed. By that provision, any
novation, rescission and alteration of a contract can be made only bilaterally. A deed of cancellation will amount to rescission of contract and if the
issue in question is viewed from the application of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, any rescission must be only bilaterally. See Citi Bank
N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Others, .
Much reliance was placed to the Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanala Malleshwari and Others Vs. Ananthula
Sayamma and Others, , wherein it was held that the cancellation of agreement of sale unilaterally by one party to the agreement is valid. Pursuant to
the judgment, the Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced Rule 26(k) to the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules by means of an amendment
dated 29.11.2006, which reads as follows:
(i) The Registering Officer shall ensure at the time of presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyance
on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale
and that such cancellation deed is accompanies by a declaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent civil or High Court of State or
Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale;
Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously
registered deeds of conveyance on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a civil Judges or a Government Officer competent to
execute Government Orders declaring the properties contained in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be Government or Assigned or
Endowment lands or properties not registrable by any provision of law.
(ii) Save in the manner provided for above, no cancellation deed of a previously registered deed of conveyance on sale before him shall be
accepted for presentation of registration.
The said Rule 26(k) was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kalitha Narasimha v. The State Government of A.P., rep. by its
Principal Secretary W.P. No. 3744/2007 by contending that the same is ultra vires of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and is contrary
to the judgment of the Full Bench in Yanala Malleshwari and others case. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, by order dated
13.3.2007, while upholding the said Rule, has held as follows:
In our opinion, the impugned rule does not in any manner violate the ratio of the majority judgment of the Full Bench. Rather, as mentioned above,
it is a statutory embodiment of one of the rules of natural justice and is intended to curtain unnecessary litigation emanating from the ex parte
registration of cancellation deeds.
As indicated in the above judgment, the principles of natural justice are also to be adhered to by the Registering Officer while dealing with a
deed of cancellation of sale. If a unilateral cancellation deed is allowed to be registered, without the knowledge and consent of the other party to
the earlier contract, as held by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, such registration would cause violence to the principles of
natural justice and lead to unnecessary litigation emanating therefrom.
By the said Rule 26(k)(ii), it was directed that no cancellation deed of a previously registered deed of conveyance on sale before him shall be
accepted for presentation for registration.
That Rule was questioned before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kalitha Narasimha v. The State Government of A.P. in W.P.
No. 3744 of 2007 and on the ground that the amendment was contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Yanala Malleshwari and
Others Vs. Ananthula Sayamma and Others, . By order dated 13.3.2007, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had upheld the said
Rule and as on today, the Rule that prevails in Andhra Pradesh is that the cancellation deed of previously registered deed of conveyance on sale
cannot be accepted for presentation by the Registrar unilaterally.
In this context, we may also usefully refer to the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in G.D. Subramaniam v. The Sub-Registrar,
Konur 2009 CIJ 243 Mad. The learned Judge has extensively considered the scope of registration of cancellation of sale deed and had ultimately
held that such unilateral cancellation of deed cannot be made in the absence of any specific provision for the Registrar to do so. We are entirely in
agreement with the said view taken by the learned single Judge.
That apart, on the facts of this case, our attention is not drawn to any of the specific provision under the Registration Act empowering the
Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration on the ground that the sale consideration was not paid and consequently, received
by the vendor. Further, in our opinion, when the Registrar satisfies himself on the perusal of the document, wherein it is stated that the full sale
consideration is received and on such satisfaction, entertain the document for registration, cannot thereafter be conferred with a power for
cancellation of the deed on the ground that the full sale consideration was not paid and received by the vendor. Conferring such power on the
Registrar would tantamount to conferring a power to decide the disputed questions. That apart, as already stated, in the absence of any provision
specifically empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration, without the signature of both the vendor and the
purchaser, the deed cannot be entertained. For the said reason, we find no infirmity in the impugned circular issued by the Inspector General of
Registration.
There is one more aspect. A person, who claims that the sale consideration has not been paid, as some undertaking was given at the time of
registration, is not without any remedy. A provision of cancellation of such deed of registration is also available to enable such of those vendors to
approach the civil Court and redress their grievance. In this context, the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this
Court are not of any assistance to the appellant on the facts of this case as, particularly, in those two cases, the prime consideration was whether a
document which is opposed to public policy could be registered or not. Merely because the words ""cancellation deed"" was also incorporated in
the Government Order dated 22.9.2000, which was subsequently set aside by the Division Bench, that would not give a right for a vendor to
present the document of cancellation of the sale deed for registration without reference to the purchaser. If such a situation is allowed, it would
certainly put the purchaser in trouble. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 194 of 2009, by judgment dated 1.4.2009, had
in fact set aside such a document of cancellation which was registered. The said judgment of the Division Bench was subsequently followed by
another Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 789 of 2009 dated 23.6.2009. We are entirely in agreement with those Division Bench judgments and
for all the reasons recorded in this judgment, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.2.2009.
As regards to the reference of the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1923 of 2005, we may point out that none of the above points were either
advanced or argued or discussed in the said judgment and therefore, the said judgment is not useful to the appellant.
For all the above reasons, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.