9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistration 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. 4. We have heard Mr.K.Bijai Sundar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.J.Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. 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 cancellatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration 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 34-A 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 22-A 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, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging 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 under Section 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 authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 City Bank N.A. v. Standard Chartered Bank and others, 2004 (1) SCC 12. 13. Much reliance was placed to the Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanala Malleshwari and others v. Ananthula Sayamma and others, 2007 (1) CTC 97, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 v. Ananthula Sayamma and others, 2007 (1) CTC 97. 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. 18. 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 Madras. 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. 19. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
