2009 (7) TMI 1372 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Registrar can register a document unilaterally executed by the vendor cancelling an earlier sale deed.
2. Validity of the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration requiring signatures of both vendor and purchaser for cancellation deeds.
3. Applicability of Section 22-A of the Registration Act and related Government Orders.
4. Relevance of judgments from other High Courts and the Supreme Court on similar issues.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the Registrar can register a document unilaterally executed by the vendor cancelling an earlier sale deed.

The appellant sold land to a purchaser via a registered sale deed and later sought to cancel this sale unilaterally, claiming the sale was not supported by consideration. The Registrar refused to register the cancellation deed without the purchaser's consent. The Court held that a registered sale deed, if sought to be cancelled, must be done bilaterally and not unilaterally. This is in line with Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which mandates that any rescission of a contract must be mutual.

Issue 2: Validity of the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration requiring signatures of both vendor and purchaser for cancellation deeds.

The Inspector General of Registration issued a circular requiring both vendor and purchaser to sign cancellation deeds. The Court upheld this circular, stating that it aligns with the principles of natural justice and prevents unnecessary litigation. The circular was issued in terms of Section 34-A of the Registration Act, which mandates the Registering Authority to verify the validity of documents presented for registration.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 22-A of the Registration Act and related Government Orders.

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu, was struck down by the Court in Captain Dr. R. Bellie's case for lacking guidelines defining "public policy." However, the Court clarified that this does not imply that a cancellation deed can be registered unilaterally. The Government Order dated 22.9.2000, which required the consent of both parties for cancellation deeds, was also set aside, but this does not affect the requirement for mutual consent in cancellation deeds.

Issue 4: Relevance of judgments from other High Courts and the Supreme Court on similar issues.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata and the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in Yanala Malleshwari's case. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld a rule requiring mutual consent for cancellation deeds, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with this view and held that unilateral cancellation of sale deeds without the purchaser's consent is not permissible.

Conclusion:

The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Registrar cannot register a cancellation deed unilaterally executed by the vendor without the purchaser's consent. The circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration was upheld, and the requirement for mutual consent in cancellation deeds was reinforced.