AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The appellants filed this appeal against the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision dismissing their writ petition concerning a cancellation deed executed by the fourth respondent. The appellants' father had purchased the plot in question in June 1983, and the appellants have been in possession since then. The fourth respondent attempted to cancel the sale deed in August 2005 without notifying the appellants. The High Court ruled that the appellants should approach the civil court regarding the cancellation deed.
Law Points
['Whether a cancellation deed can be executed and registered unilaterally without notice to the parties involved.', 'The validity of a cancellation deed in the absence of a court order or consent from all parties.', 'The implications of the Registration Act regarding the registration of cancellation deeds.']
Acts & Articles
['Registration Act, Section 69']
Judgments Referred
['Yanala Malleshwari and Ors. v. Ananthula Sayamma and Ors., 2006 (6) ALD 623 (FB)']
Obiter Dicta
The court emphasized that when a piece of land is transferred, the title passes to the new owner upon registration. The only proper way for the original owner to reclaim the property is through a civil suit or mutual agreement, not by a unilateral cancellation deed.
Ratio Decidendi
A cancellation deed executed and registered without the consent of all involved parties, or without a declaration by a competent court, is void and non-existent in law. Such transactions must follow proper legal process, which includes notification to the parties and authority from a court.
Final Ruling
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The court ruled that the cancellation deed was void, and there are no costs associated with this decision.
Plain-Language Gist
The dispute involved a challenge to the validity of a cancellation deed executed without proper proceedings and consent. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the appellants, declaring the cancellation deed void and restoring their rights to the property.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
Heard Learned Counsel for the appearing parties.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 8th November, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 8518 of 2006, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition relying upon a Full Bench judgment of the same High Court in the case of Yanala Malleshwari and Ors. v. Ananthula Sayamma and Ors. reported in 2006 (6) ALD 623 (FB) = 2006 (6) ALT 523 (FB). It appears that the father of the Appellants purchased the plot in question from Respondent No. 4 by a registered sale deed dated 21st June, 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.
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.
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 the 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.
In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(i)(k) relating to Andhra Pradesh u/s 69 of the Registration Act, which states:
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 register able 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 concerned parties. 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.
The appeal is disposed of with the above observations. The impugned judgment is set aside. No order as to costs.
In view of the above order, no orders need be passed on the application for intervention and it is disposed of accordingly.
CA Nos. 791, 867, 1031, 702, 1879, 1917 of 2007 and 5313 of 2010 @ SLP (C) No. 7969 of 2007 and 5314 of 2010 @ SLP (C) No. 9360 of 2007
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 these appeals and they are also disposed of in the same terms. No order as to costs.