Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ appeal filed by K. Ratnam against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.12.2018 dismissing his writ petition. The appellant had purchased a block of 3.31 acres of land between 1982 and 2000, with some properties purchased in the names of his daughters, Vahitha Devi and Krishnaveni. On 21.05.2010, both daughters executed settlement deeds in favour of the appellant for part of the properties. On 14.12.2015, one Mohanan instituted a collusive suit for partition against the third respondent, Jeyalakshmi, and others, which was decreed on 11.02.2016 based on a memo filed by the parties. The decree was used to cancel the settlement deeds. The appellant filed an application before the District Registrar for cancellation of the registered documents, which was rejected. The writ petition challenging that order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner might not be entitled to the remedy in law. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that the District Registrar lacked jurisdiction to cancel registered documents and that the suit was fraudulent and collusive. The court set aside the order of the District Registrar and directed the restoration of the settlement deeds.
Headnote
A) Registration Act, 1908 - Cancellation of Registered Documents - Jurisdiction of District Registrar - The District Registrar does not have the power to cancel a registered document; such power lies only with a civil court. The court held that the order of the District Registrar cancelling the settlement deeds was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. (Paras 2-10) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Fraud and Collusion - Abuse of Process - The suit for partition was collusive and fraudulent, aimed at obtaining a decree to cancel the settlement deeds. The court held that the entire proceedings were an abuse of the judicial process. (Paras 4-8) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Remedy - Alternative Remedy - The writ petitioner had established cause of action but the learned Single Judge held he might not be entitled to remedy in law. The Division Bench reversed, holding that the writ petition was maintainable and the District Registrar's order was illegal. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Registrar has the power to cancel registered documents under the Registration Act, 1908, and whether the writ petitioner is entitled to a remedy in law despite establishing cause of action.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.12.2018 in W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2018 is set aside. The order of the District Registrar cancelling the settlement deeds is quashed. The settlement deeds are restored. No costs.
Law Points
- District Registrar lacks jurisdiction to cancel registered documents
- Fraud and collusion in civil suit
- Abuse of process of court
- Remedy of civil suit for cancellation of documents
- Writ petition maintainability
