Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    GAJALAKSHMI v. M.SRINIVASAN

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    DATED: 26.07.2022

    CORAM :

    THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

    AND

    THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

    Gajalakshmi ... Appellant vs

    1.M.Srinivasan

    2.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road,

    Mylapore, Chennai 4

    3.The District Registrar,

    Vellore District, Vellore 632 001 4.The Joint Sub Registrar-I, Vellore 632 001

    5.Visalakshi

    6.Santhalakshmi

    7.Selvakumari ... Respondents

    Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order dated 04.07.2019 in WP No.2820 of 2019.

    For the Appellant : Mr.S.Vijayanand

    For the Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran,

    for M/s.Mcgain Law Firm,

    for the first respondent

    Page 1 of 4

    Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Government Pleader, for respondents 2 to 4

    JUDGMENT

    (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

    The writ appeal has been filed to assail the order dated 04.07.2019 in WP No.2820 of 2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein was allowed.

    2. The writ petition was filed to challenge the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 23.01.1974 registered as Doc.No.193 of 1974 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar I, Vellore. The said settlement deed was unilaterally cancelled by the writ appellant and therefore, it was challenged by the writ petitioner/1st respondent. Learned Single Judge found that the issue aforesaid has already been dealt with and decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Estate Line India Ltd. vs. Hadeeja Ammal, 2011(2) CTC 1 (FB) wherein it was held that the executant of a document of conveyance cannot unilaterally cancel the same without the consent of the party in whose favour the document has been executed and resultantly, the registration of such deed of unilateral cancellation cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the judgment of learned Single

    Page 2 of 4

    Judge so as to cause interference therein. Learned Single Judge has given liberty to the appellant to avail remedy before the civil court having jurisdiction over the matter and in the manner recognised by law. Accordingly, while maintaining the liberty aforesaid, the writ appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

    (M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)

    26.07.2022

    Index : Yes/No tar

    To

    1.The Joint Sub Registrar-I, O/o the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Vellore 632 001

    2.The Inspector General of Registration, O/o the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road,

    Mylapore, Chennai 4

    3.The District Registrar,

    Vellore District,

    vellore 632 001

    Page 3 of 4

    M.N.Bhandari, CJ. and

    N.Mala, J.

    (tar)

    26.07.2022

    Page 4 of 4

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    GAJALAKSHMI v. M.SRINIVASAN
    (Jul 26, 2022)