THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.(MD)No.9934 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.8995 of 2024 R.Dhanaraj … Petitioner -vs- 1.The District Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Sub Registrar, Thisayanvilai, Tirunelveli District. 3.D.Thiruparkadal 4.Madasamy … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to cancel the unilateral cancellation deed in Document No.3208 of 2011 dated 29.07.2011 and further to direct the second respondent to remove the entries of unilateral cancellation of sale deed in Document No.3208 of 2011 in the encumbrance certificate of the properties measuring to an extent of 2.52 acres comprised in Survey No.427/2, situated at Kumarapuram Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Vahik Ali Standing Counsel For R3 and R4 : No Appearance
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD)No.9934 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.8995 of 2024
R.Dhanaraj … Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Registrar,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Thisayanvilai,
Tirunelveli District.
3.D.Thiruparkadal
4.Madasamy … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to cancel the unilateral cancellation deed in Document No.3208 of 2011 dated 29.07.2011 and further to direct the second respondent to remove the entries of unilateral cancellation of sale deed in Document No.3208 of 2011 in the encumbrance certificate of the properties measuring to an extent of 2.52 acres comprised in Survey No.427/2, situated at Kumarapuram Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Vahik Ali
Standing Counsel
For R3 and R4 : No Appearance
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to cancel the deed of cancellation registered as Document No.3208 of 2011 dated 29.07.2011 and consequently to remove the entry relating to the said cancellation deed from the encumbrance certificate pertaining to the property measuring an extent of 2.52 acres comprised in Survey No.427/2, situated at Kumarapuram Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question originally belonged to one Hari Gopala Krishnan. The said Hari Gopala Krishnan executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2008 in favour of D.Thiruparkadal, the third respondent herein. Acting on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, the third respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent, Madasamy, on 30.12.2008. Thereafter, the fourth respondent alienated the property under a sale deed dated 27.12.2010 in favour of the petitioner’s vendor. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 07.03.2011.
3. According to the petitioner, after purchasing the property, he developed the same into plots and commenced selling them. While so, when certain documents were presented for registration, objections were raised on the ground that the respondents 3 and 4 had executed a deed of cancellation dated 29.07.2011 cancelling the sale deed dated 30.12.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that such a cancellation ought not to have been entertained by the Sub-Registrar. While verification of the authority of a person presenting a document may fall within the jurisdiction of the registering authority, cancellation of an already completed transfer after divestiture of title stands on an entirely different footing.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once title had stood transferred from the respondents 3 and 4, there was no question of cancelling the earlier sale deed, even by mutual consent. If the parties intended to restore title, the same could have been effected only by means of a reconveyance in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the reason assigned in the cancellation deed is that one Saraswathi had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the third respondent, and it was subsequently discovered that the said Saraswathi was not the actual owner of the properties concerned, but was a different individual bearing the same name. It is on the said basis that the cancellation deed came to be executed.
5. The learned counsel would further point out that, out of the seven items covered under the cancellation deed, Item No.7 relates to the present property comprised in Survey No.427/2. The said property admittedly belonged to Hari Gopala Krishnan and not to the said Saraswathi. Therefore, the very basis on which the cancellation deed purports to have been executed has no application whatsoever to Survey No.427/2. Consequently, insofar as the subject property is concerned, the cancellation deed is wholly unsustainable and incapable of affecting the petitioner’s title.
6. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Collector, Devakottai and Another .
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that it is true that, as on the date of execution of the cancellation deed dated 29.07.2011, the property had already been further alienated. Therefore, the document could well have been refused registration by the Sub-Registrar. However, the document had in fact been registered in the year 2011 and continues to remain on record. According to the learned Standing Counsel, neither the Sub-Registrar nor the District Registrar possesses any statutory power to cancel a document once registered. Therefore, the petitioner must necessarily approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief.
8. The learned Standing Counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others , wherein it has been held that a Sub-Registrar has no power to cancel a registration once it has been effected. It was therefore contended that the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted and that the petitioner must be relegated to the remedy before the Civil Court.
9. Though notice has been served on the respondents 3 and 4, namely D.Thiruparkadal and Madasamy, who are the executants of the cancellation deed, they have not chosen to enter appearance or contest the writ petition.
10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11. Ordinarily, parties seeking such reliefs may have to be relegated to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. However, though the cancellation deed in the present case has been executed jointly by the respondents 3 and 4, the property had already been alienated prior to the date of such cancellation. Therefore, insofar as the subsequent purchasers are concerned, who were not parties to the cancellation deed, the document must be treated as a unilateral cancellation. Viewed from that perspective, the writ petition challenging the unilateral cancellation deed is maintainable.
12. Firstly, it is evident from the Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2008 that Survey No.427/2 belonged to Hari Gopala Krishnan. Even according to the parties, there was never any dispute with regard to his ownership. The cancellation deed proceeds on the premise that certain transactions had been entered into under a mistaken belief regarding the identity of one Saraswathi. However, the cancellation deed covers not only the properties allegedly connected with the said Saraswathi but also Survey No.427/2, which admittedly belonged exclusively to Hari Gopala Krishnan. Therefore, insofar as Item No.7 is concerned, the very reason assigned in the cancellation deed is wholly inapplicable. On the face of it, the inclusion of Survey No.427/2 in the cancellation deed does not appear to be a bona fide exercise. Significantly, despite the specific pleadings raised by the petitioner in this regard, the respondents 3 and 4 have chosen not to dispute the factual assertions before this Court.
13. Secondly, it is now well settled in law that once title has been transferred under a registered conveyance, the same cannot be divested and revested merely by executing a deed of cancellation. The legal position has been repeatedly affirmed by this Court. The Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala’s case (cited supra) has categorically reiterated the said principle. It is therefore necessary to extract the relevant portions of the judgment.
”10. …..
”59. After giving our anxious consideration on the questions raised in the instant case, we come to the following conclusion:
(i) …..
(ii) Once title to the property is vested in the transferee by the sale of the property, it cannot be divested unto the transferor by execution and registration of a deed of cancellation even with the consent of the parties. The proper course would be to re-convey the property by a deed of conveyance by the transferee in favour of the transferor.” ”
14. Thus, the title which originally vested in the fourth respondent, Madasamy, stood divested upon the execution of the sale deed dated 27.12.2010. Thereafter, the property was further conveyed to the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 07.03.2011. Once title had passed to subsequent purchasers, it could not be revested in the transferor merely by executing a deed of cancellation. If the parties intended to restore the title, the same could have been achieved only by way of a valid deed of reconveyance or by obtaining appropriate relief from a competent Civil Court. Therefore, the cancellation deed dated 29.07.2011, insofar as it purports to affect the rights of subsequent purchasers, is nothing but a unilateral cancellation of a completed conveyance and ought not to have been entertained for registration. Consequently, the said cancellation deed is wholly ineffective and incapable of affecting the petitioner’s title or the rights of subsequent purchasers.
15. At the same time, having regard to the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that neither the Sub-Registrar nor the District Registrar has the power to cancel a document once registered, this Court is of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner can be appropriately moulded. Accordingly, it is directed that a suitable endorsement shall be made in the encumbrance records relating to the subject property to the following effect:
“By order of the High Court in W.P.(MD)No.9934 of 2024, dated 09.06.2026, the cancellation deed registered as Document No.3208 of 2011 has been held to be ineffective insofar as S.No.427/2 and shall not affect the rights of the subsequent purchasers to deal with the property.”
16. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:
(i) Within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of web copy of this order, the second respondent shall make an endorsement in the encumbrance records pertaining to the subject property in the following terms:
“By order of the High Court in W.P.(MD)No.9934 of 2024, dated 09.06.2026, the cancellation deed registered as Document No.3208 of 2011 has been held to be ineffective insofar as S.No.427/2 and shall not affect the rights of the subsequent purchasers to deal with the property.”
(ii) The said endorsement shall thereafter be reflected in the encumbrance certificate issued in respect of the subject property.
(iii) No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.06.2026
NCC : Yes
smn2
To:-
1.The District Registrar,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Thisayanvilai,
Tirunelveli District.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
smn2
W.P.(MD)No.9934 of 2024
09.06.2026
