caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Amudhavali vs P.Rukumani on 7 December, 2021Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.20427 of 2019
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7464 OF 2021
[arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.20427 of 2019]
Amudhavali & Ors. …Appellants
vs.
P. Rukumani & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This civil appeal is filed, aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 17.07.2019 passed in Writ
Appeal No.229 of 2018 by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras. By the aforesaid order, the intra-court appeal
preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein was allowed by
setting aside the order of the learned single Judge
Signature Not Verified
passed in W.P. No.6329 of 2009.
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2021.12.07
16:18:33 IST
Reason: 3. The respondent nos.1 to 4 herein who were original
owners of the land covered by S.F. No.246/1 of Kalapatti
1
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.20427 of 2019
Village, Gandhipuram Sub-Registration District of
Coimbatore, have executed a registered power of attorney
in favour of respondent no.7. The appellants claim that,
they have purchased the said land admeasuring Acs.3.46
cents from the respondent Nos.1 to 4, vide registered
sale deed dated 09.03.2005, executed by their Power of
Attorney, i.e. respondent no.7. Subsequently, the
respondent nos.1 to 4 prepared the Cancellation Deed on
09.03.2005 and got it registered on 20.09.2007. After
registration of such deed, respondent nos.1 to 4 also
filed a civil suit to declare the sale deed dated
09.03.2005 executed in favour of the appellants, as
illegal, void and non est. Subsequent to registration of
cancellation deed, an extent of 0.25 cents of land was
transferred by registered sale deed dated 27.02.2009, in
favour of respondent no.8.
4. Questioning the cancellation deed and alleging
interference with possession, the appellants herein have
filed Writ Petition No.6329 of 2009 before the High
Court. Mainly it was the case of the appellants that
once the sale is effected by way of a registered sale
deed, respondent nos.1 to 4 could not have cancelled the
sale deed unilaterally and get it registered.
5. Respondent nos.1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit
in the writ petition before the High Court. It was their
2
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.20427 of 2019
case that writ petition, as filed, was not maintainable
due to delay and laches as the same was filed in the
month of March 2009, whereas the cancellation deed was
registered on 20.09.2007. It was also their case that
after cancellation, they have issued notice to the
appellants and inspite of the same no immediate steps
were taken and the appellants are already contesting the
suit i.e. O.S. No.142 of 2008, which is pending on the
file of IIIrd Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore,
in which written statement is already filed.
6. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition
by order dated 07.09.2017 mainly on the ground that once
the sale deed is executed, the land stood transferred to
the appellants and unless there is a consent of the
appellants, no cancellation deed could be registered.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the
respondent nos.1 to 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 of the
learned Single Judge.
7. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has held
that civil suit filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 in
O.S. No.142 of 2008 for declaration and cancellation of
the sale deed dated 09.03.2005 is already pending
consideration and rights of the parties will be
3
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.20427 of 2019
adjudicated in the pending suit. The Division Bench of
the High Court was of the view that in view of factual
disputes, Learned Single Judge could not have
entertained petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. Heard Sri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel
for the appellants; Sri V. Chitambresh, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Sri C.K.
Sasi, learned counsel for the State; and Smt. Anitha
Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
No.8.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we
have perused 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 Court in the case of Satya Pal
Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 and allowed the appeal,
but same is distinguishable on facts of the present
case. It is further submitted that once the property is
transferred by registered sale deed, unilateral
cancellation of such deed is void, non est and is
opposed to public policy. It is submitted that
registration of such a deed is not recognised under the
1
(2016) 10 SCC 767
4
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.20427 of 2019
scheme of the Registration Act, 1908 and if such
unilateral cancellation deeds are allowed to be
registered, it will cause grave prejudice and injustice
to bona fide purchasers. Learned counsel relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi
& Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.2, in
support of his case. By referring to complaint filed
against the respondent nos.1 to 4, it is submitted that
there was no delay and laches on the part of the
appellants in approaching the High Court.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri Chitambresh,
appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 has submitted that
subject matter of this appeal is squarely covered and is
to be dismissed, in view of the judgment of this Court
in the case of Satya Pal Anand1. Referring to paragraph
No.38 of the judgment in the case of Satya Pal Anand1,
learned senior counsel has submitted that absence of the
party to the extinguishment deed cannot be said to be a
fraudulent action per se. Referring to the judgment in
the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi2, it is submitted that same
cannot be applied to the facts of the case and said
judgment is rendered in view of specific rule which was
applicable to State of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted,
after cancellation, when the suit is filed by respondent
nos.1 to 4 the appellants have already filed their
2
(2010) 15 SCC 207
5
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.20427 of 2019
written statement and contesting the matter, and prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.8 has
submitted that respondent no.8 is a subsequent bona fide
purchaser, to an extent of 0.25 cents of the disputed
land. It is submitted that as he is a bona fide
purchaser he cannot be deprived of the said land for no
fault of him.
13. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the
High Court, it is clear that the said judgment is
rendered mainly relying on the judgment of this Court in
the case of Satya Pal Anand1. The aforesaid case relates
to allotment of a site by a co-operative society and on
the ground that the condition of allotment is violated
by not constructing house within the time frame, and the
original allottee has breached the condition, co-
operative society has cancelled the allotment and
subsequently executed an extinguishment deed. In the
aforesaid judgment, it is held that the original
allottee has also entered into compromise with
subsequent purchasers of the land and notwithstanding
the same, he has raised dispute under Section 64 of the
Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. When the
dispute was pending on the very same cause of action,
writ petition was filed. When the original purchaser has
6
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.20427 of 2019
approached the Sub-registrar for cancellation of a
cancellation deed, the registering authority by a
speaking order has rejected the same on two grounds,
i.e., firstly, dispute was pending between the parties
in the Civil Court; and secondly on the ground that it
had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration of a
registered document.
14. In the case on hand it is not in dispute, that
after registering the cancellation deed, respondent
nos.1 to 4 have filed a civil suit which is pending in
O.S.No.142 of 2008, seeking declaration that sale deed
dated 09.03.2005 executed in favour of the appellants is
null and void. In the said suit the appellants have
already filed written statement. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court also observed that the
subsequent cancellation deed is always subject to
adjudication of rights of the parties by the competent
civil court. As much as the appellants have already
filed a written statement in the civil suit in O.S.
No.142 of 2008, and contesting the same, we are not
inclined to examine the validity and effect of such
cancellation deed, at this stage, by interfering with
the impugned order of the High Court.
15. It is settled legal position that registration of
document is always subject to adjudication of rights of
7
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.20427 of 2019
the parties by the competent civil court. Had the
appellants not entered their appearance by filing a
written statement, it would have been a different
situation. It is also to be noted that subsequent to
registration of cancellation deed, a portion of the land
is 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 2008 on the file of IIIrd Additional
Subordinate Court, Coimbatore is pending on the same
subject, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order and examine the validity of cancellation
deed. As we are of the view that the rights of the
parties will be subject to adjudication in Civil Suit in
O.S. No.142 of 2008, it is not necessary to delve in
detail to various contentions advanced by the learned
counsels on both sides.
17. We dispose of this civil appeal by observing that
rights of the parties with regard to the land in
question will be governed by the judgment in pending
suit in O.S. No.142 of 2008 on the file of the III rd
Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. The civil suit
shall be decided on its own merits. The parties are
directed to maintain status quo with regard to
possession existing as on today till the disposal of the
8
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.20427 of 2019
suit. The Suit in O.S.No.142 of 2008 is to be disposed
of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of one year. The civil appeal is disposed of with
directions as indicated above. No order as to costs.
………………………………………………J
[R. Subhash Reddy]
………………………………………………J
[Hrishikesh Roy]
New Delhi.
December 7, 2021.
NOTE: Registry to communicate a copy of this order to
the IIIrd Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore where
O.S. No.142 of 2008 is pending.
9
Comments