- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Thota Ganga Laxmi And Another v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants’ father purchased the disputed plot from Respondent 4 through a registered sale deed dated 21 June 1983 and remained in uninterrupted possession thereafter. On 4 August 2005 Respondent 4 executed a unilateral “cancellation deed,” which Respondent 3 (the registering officer) registered without giving any notice to the appellants. The appellants filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the cancellation deed was illegal. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on a Full Bench decision in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma, dismissed the petition and directed the appellants to seek relief in a civil court. The present civil appeal challenges that High Court order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a vendor can unilaterally execute and register a cancellation deed to nullify a previously registered sale deed without the consent of the vendee or an order of a competent court.
- Whether the purchaser is required to institute a separate civil suit to challenge such a cancellation deed, or if the writ jurisdiction is an appropriate remedy.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of A.P. (High Court order under appeal) | High Court dismissed writ petition, holding parties should approach civil court. | Supreme Court set aside this order, holding recourse to a civil suit was unnecessary because the cancellation deed was void ab initio. |
| Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma, (2006) 6 ALT 523 (Full Bench, A.P. High Court) | Taken by High Court to mean unilateral cancellation deeds required adjudication in civil court. | Supreme Court declined to follow the Full Bench view to the extent it required the purchaser to sue, emphasizing that a unilateral cancellation deed is “wholly void and non est.” |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reasoned as follows:
- A registered sale deed passes title to the vendee from the date of execution; subsequent unilateral acts by the vendor cannot divest that title.
- Under Rule 26(k)(i) framed under section 69 of the Registration Act 1908 (as applicable in Andhra Pradesh), a cancellation deed can be registered only when:
- All parties to the original conveyance execute it, or
- It is supported by an order of a competent civil or High Court or appropriate government authority.
- Because the impugned cancellation deed was executed unilaterally and registered without notice, it was “wholly void and non est.” The purchaser therefore needed no civil decree to ignore it.
- The High Court’s reliance on Yanala Malleshwari was misplaced in these circumstances; compelling the appellants to file a civil suit would impose an unnecessary and unjust burden.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed on the basis that the cancellation deed and its registration are void and inoperative.
Implications: The decision clarifies that a unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed, without consent of the purchaser or a court order, is ineffective in law. Registering officers must comply with Rule 26(k)(i) of the Registration Act, 1908, and refuse registration of such cancellation deeds. The ruling relieves purchasers from the burden of initiating separate civil proceedings when faced with void unilateral cancellations; however, it does not establish new precedent beyond the instant clarification of existing statutory requirements.
Order
Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2007
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appearing parties. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 8-11-2006 passed in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Govt. of A.P whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition relying upon a Full Bench judgment of the same High Court in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma (2006) 6 An LT 523.
2. It appears that the father of the appellants purchased the plot in question from Respondent 4 by a registered sale deed dated 21-6-1983 and since then the appellants have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Subsequently, it appears that the fourth respondent purported to get the said sale deed cancelled unilaterally, executing the cancellation deed dated 4-8-2005 and the same was registered by the third respondent without any notice to the appellants.
3. A writ petition was filed seeking declaration that the cancellation deed is illegal and that has been disposed of by the impugned judgment holding that the appellants should approach the civil court.
4. In our opinion, there was no need for the appellants to approach the civil court as the said cancellation deed dated 4-8-2005 as well as registration of the same was wholly void and non est and can be ignored altogether. For illustration, if A transfers a piece of land to B by a registered sale deed, then, if it is not disputed that A had the title to the land, that title passes to B on the registration of the sale deed (retrospectively from the date of the execution of the same) and B then becomes the owner of the land. If A wants to subsequently get that sale deed cancelled, he has to file a civil suit for cancellation or else he can request B to sell the land back to A but by no stretch of imagination, can a cancellation deed be executed or registered. This is unheard of in law.
5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(k)(i) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which states:
“(i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or 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 conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge 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 registerable by any provision of law.”
A reading of the above Rule also supports the observations we have made above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions.
6. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations. The impugned judgment is set aside. No order as to costs.
7. In view of the above order, no orders need be passed on the application for intervention and it is disposed of accordingly.
Civil Appeals Nos. 791, 867, 1031, 702, 1879 and 1917 of 2007, Civil Appeal No. 5313 of 2010 @ SLP (C) No. 7969 of 2007, Civil Appeal No. 5314 of 2010 @ SLP (C) No. 9360 of 2007
8. Leave granted in the special leave petitions. Since the point involved in these appeals is the same as in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2007, the order passed by us today in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2007 shall also govern in these appeals and they are also disposed of in the same terms. No order as to costs.
Alert