# SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2015] 14 S.C.R. 927
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-08-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6673 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, V. Gopala Gowda
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/satya-pal-anand-v-state-of-m-p-and-others-30626
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

Registration Act, 1908 -
s.69 -
Jurisdiction of
authorities under the Act-A plot of land has been allotted to
appellant's mother, by respondent no.4-Society-After death C
of appellant's mother, respondent no.4-society, through its
office bearer executed a Deed of Extinguishment unilaterally
cancelling the said allotment and on the strength of such
document, executed a registered sale deed in favour of
respondent no. 5, who in turn executed a sale deed in favour D
of the respondent nos. 6 and 7-Appellant moved the SubRegistrar (Registration) seeking cancellation of the Deed of
Extinguishment- SUb-Registrar rejected the said prayer on
two counts, namely, the dispute between the parties was
pending before the competent authority under the M.P.
E
Cooperative Societies Act and secondly, his jurisdiction was
limited only to the extent of registering the documents and if
any party desired its cancellation, then to verify that the
cancellation deed is registered on appropriate stamp paper
-Appellant filed application u/s.69 of the Registration Act,
F
which was rejected by the Inspector General (Registration)
stating that the powers conferred on him is limited to general
superintendence of the registration office and making rules
. - The Inspector General further intimated him that against
the order of Sub-Registrar, it was open to the appellant to
G
initiate appropriate proceedings before a Court of competent
jurisdiction -Appellant filed writ petition praying for declaring
the Extinguishment Deed as well as the subsequent sale
deeds as void ab initio - High Court held that the controversy
927
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A
raised by the appellant could not be adjudicated in the writ
proceeding; and that the authorities under the Act had
correctly stated that they have no jurisdiction to decide the
soundness of registration of Extinguishment Deed or the sale
deeds and declare them as null and void - Whether the Deed
B of Extinguishment and the subsequent sale deeds registered
by the Sub-Registrar under the Act could be cancelled by
the Sub-Registrar or by his superior authority in exercise of
powers conferred under the Act - Held (per Misra, J.): In
Thota Ganga Laxmi case, the Supreme Court, after making
c reference to a specific rule, namely, Rule 26(k)(i) framed by
the State of Andhra Pradesh u/s. 69 of the Registration Act,
opined that a cancellation deed cannot be executed or
registered - Question that emerges for consideration is
whether in the absence of any specific rule in the State of
o Madhya Pradesh, the general principle laid down in the case
ofThota Ganga Laxmi would be applicable - Jn the absence
of any rule, to opine that by no stretch of imagination can a
cancellation deed be accepted or registered by the
Registering Authority does not appear to be correct- Hence,
E
the principle by way of general observations stated in Thota
Ganga Laxmi case requires consideration by a larger Bench
- Held (per Gowda, J.): High Court should have responsibly
exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction and should have
examined the documents of the sale deed with respect to
F the relevant provisions of the M.P Co-operative Societies Act
and Rules, 1962 and the Bye-Jaws of the Society - The
cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the
appellant's mother in the year 1962 by way of the
extinguishment deed could not have been registered by the
G Sub-Registrar as he is not empowered to do so - Hence, for
want of the competent jurisdiction, in registering such
document, the High Court should have exercised its
extraordinary jurisdiction to annul the extinguishment deed
and the transactions of the subsequent sale deeds, which
H has not been done by it- Thus, the High Court has failed to
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
929
exercise its discretionary power which has resulted in a grave A
miscarriage of justice, thereby, depriving the valuable
constitutional right guaranteed wider Art.300A of the
Constitution to the appell

## Text

_Characters 0–39,942 of 90,080. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39942 for what follows._

[2015] 14 S.C.R. 927
SATYA PAL ANAND
v.
STATE OF M.P.AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6673 of 2014)
AUGUST 25, 2015
A
B
[DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]
Registration Act, 1908 -
s.69 -
Jurisdiction of
authorities under the Act-A plot of land has been allotted to
appellant's mother, by respondent no.4-Society-After death C
of appellant's mother, respondent no.4-society, through its
office bearer executed a Deed of Extinguishment unilaterally
cancelling the said allotment and on the strength of such
document, executed a registered sale deed in favour of
respondent no. 5, who in turn executed a sale deed in favour D
of the respondent nos. 6 and 7-Appellant moved the SubRegistrar (Registration) seeking cancellation of the Deed of
Extinguishment- SUb-Registrar rejected the said prayer on
two counts, namely, the dispute between the parties was
pending before the competent authority under the M.P.
E
Cooperative Societies Act and secondly, his jurisdiction was
limited only to the extent of registering the documents and if
any party desired its cancellation, then to verify that the
cancellation deed is registered on appropriate stamp paper
-Appellant filed application u/s.69 of the Registration Act,
F
which was rejected by the Inspector General (Registration)
stating that the powers conferred on him is limited to general
superintendence of the registration office and making rules
. - The Inspector General further intimated him that against
the order of Sub-Registrar, it was open to the appellant to
G
initiate appropriate proceedings before a Court of competent
jurisdiction -Appellant filed writ petition praying for declaring
the Extinguishment Deed as well as the subsequent sale
deeds as void ab initio - High Court held that the controversy
927
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A
raised by the appellant could not be adjudicated in the writ
proceeding; and that the authorities under the Act had
correctly stated that they have no jurisdiction to decide the
soundness of registration of Extinguishment Deed or the sale
deeds and declare them as null and void - Whether the Deed
B of Extinguishment and the subsequent sale deeds registered
by the Sub-Registrar under the Act could be cancelled by
the Sub-Registrar or by his superior authority in exercise of
powers conferred under the Act - Held (per Misra, J.): In
Thota Ganga Laxmi case, the Supreme Court, after making
c reference to a specific rule, namely, Rule 26(k)(i) framed by
the State of Andhra Pradesh u/s. 69 of the Registration Act,
opined that a cancellation deed cannot be executed or
registered - Question that emerges for consideration is
whether in the absence of any specific rule in the State of
o Madhya Pradesh, the general principle laid down in the case
ofThota Ganga Laxmi would be applicable - Jn the absence
of any rule, to opine that by no stretch of imagination can a
cancellation deed be accepted or registered by the
Registering Authority does not appear to be correct- Hence,
E
the principle by way of general observations stated in Thota
Ganga Laxmi case requires consideration by a larger Bench
- Held (per Gowda, J.): High Court should have responsibly
exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction and should have
examined the documents of the sale deed with respect to
F the relevant provisions of the M.P Co-operative Societies Act
and Rules, 1962 and the Bye-Jaws of the Society - The
cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the
appellant's mother in the year 1962 by way of the
extinguishment deed could not have been registered by the
G Sub-Registrar as he is not empowered to do so - Hence, for
want of the competent jurisdiction, in registering such
document, the High Court should have exercised its
extraordinary jurisdiction to annul the extinguishment deed
and the transactions of the subsequent sale deeds, which
H has not been done by it- Thus, the High Court has failed to
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
929
exercise its discretionary power which has resulted in a grave A
miscarriage of justice, thereby, depriving the valuable
constitutional right guaranteed wider Art.300A of the
Constitution to the appellant - Order of the High Court
accordingly set aside and the impugned instruments i.e. the
extinguishment deed and the subsequent sale deeds B
quashed with further direction to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to
vacate the said property and hand over the possession of
the same to the appellant- Respondents further directed to
pay the appellant a compensation amount of Rs.10 Lakhs
for his sufferings and the injustice caused to him by the C
society for the last 14 years as he was deprived of his right to
enjoy the property on account of the Arbitrary and unilateral
action taken by the society in canculling the sale deed in
respect of the property in question executed in favour of his
deceased mother - Held (per curiam): In view of the o
difference of opinion, matter directed to be placed before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of/ndia, for constituting appropriate
Bench -
M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 -
M.P
Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 - Constitution of India,
1950-Art. 300A.
. E
· In the judgment of Dipak Misra, J.
Thota Ganga LaJ(mi and another v. Government
of Andhra Pradesh and others (2010) 15 SCC 207
- held, requires consideration by larger Bench.
Yanala Malleshwari v. Anantula Sayamma AIR
2007 AP 57 E.R.; Kalaivan v. Inspector General
of Registration, Chennai and Anr AIR 201 O
Madras 18; M. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub
Registrar, Bangalore and Another AIR 2000
Karnataka 46; Park View Enterprises v. State of
Tamil Nadu AIR 1990 Mad 251; Satya Pal Anand
v. Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society & Others
2013 (9) SCALE 355 - re.ferred to.
F
G
H
930
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
In the judgment of V. Gopala Gowda, J:
Yanala Mal/esflwari v. Anantula Sayamma AIR
2007 AP 57; E.R. Kalaivan v. Inspector General
of Registration, Chennai &Anr. AIR 2010 Madras
18; M. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub Registrar,
Bangalore & Anr. AIR 2000 Karnataka 46; Thota
Ganga Laxmi & Anr. v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 207; E.R. Kalaivan
v. Inspector General of Registration AIR 201 O
Madras 18; Government of U.P. v. Raja
Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan AIR 1961 SC 787
: 1962 SCR 97 ; Government of Uttar Pradesh v.
Khan, Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964
SC 72 : 1964 SCR 733; Arunachalam v. PS.R.
Sadhanantham andAnr. (1979) 2 SCC 297: 1979
(3) SCR 482; Ganga Kumar Shrivastav v. State
of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211; GAG v. K.S.
Jagannathan (1986) 2 sec 679 : 1986 (2)
SCR 17; Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee
Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav
Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691 :
1989 (2) SCR 697; Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad
lshaque AIR 1955 SC 233 : 1955 SCR 1104 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
In the judgment of Dipak Misra, J.
AIR 2007 AP 57
referred to
Para 15
AIR 2010 Madras 18
referred to
Para 18
AIR 2000 Karnataka 46
referred to
Para 19
(201 o) 15 sec 207
held, requires
Para 20
consideration
by larger Bench
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
931
AIR 1990 Mad 251
referred to
Para 23
A
2013 (9) SCALE 355
referred to
Para 28
In the judgment ofV. Go1:1ala Gowda, J: •
AIR 2007 AP 57
referred to
Para 2
AIR 2010 Madras 18
referred to
Para 2
B
AIR 2000 Karnataka 46·
referred to
Para 2
(201 O) 15 sec 201
referred to
Paraz
AIR 201 O Madras 18
referred to
Para 11
c
1962 SCR 97
referred to
Para 11
1964 SCR 733
referred to
Para 19
1979 (3) SCR 482
referred to
Para 22
(2005) 6 sec 211
referred to
Para 22
D
1986 (2) SCR 17
referred to
·Para 25
1989 (2) SCR 697
referred to
Para 26
1955 SCR 1104
referred to
Para 27
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
6673 of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2011 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in WP No. 13505
of 2008.
F
Satya Pal Anand (Appellant-in-Person).
S.K. Dubey, Sr. Adv., C. D. Singh, Yogesh Tiwari, Shreya
Dubey, Mishra Saurabh, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms: Anagha S.
Desai, Somnath Padhan, Swetab Kumar, Akash K., Advs. for G
the Respondents.
The Judgments and Order of the Court were deliverer' by
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The appellant, a septuagenarian,
filed an application dated 4.2.2008 ·in the office of the H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 14 S.C.R.
A
Sub-Registrar, Bhopal, the third respondent herein. for
cancellation of registered documents dated 9.8.2001,
21.4.2004 and 11. 7.2006 which pertain to registration of
immoveable property situated on Plot No. 7-B, Punjabi Bagh,
Raisen Road, Bhopal. As put forth by the appellant in his
B application, the said plot was allotted to his mother, Smt.
VeeravaliAnand, by the Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society
Ltd. (for short, "the Society"), the fourth respondent herein, by
entering into a sale deed dated 22.3.1962, registered on
30.03.1962. Sm!. Veeravali Anand expired on 12.6.1988.
c After her death, the fourth respondent, through its office bearer
executed a Deed of Extinguishment on 9.8.2001 unilaterally
cancelling the said allotment and on the strength of such
document, executed a registered sale deed dated 21.4.2004
in favour of Mrs. Manjit Kaur, the respondent no. 5 herein. Mrs.
D Manjit Kaur in her turn executed another sale deed dated
11. 7 .2006 in favour of the respondent nos. 6 and 7, Mrs.
Meenakhsi and Mr. S.C. Sharma.
2.As is evident, under these circumstances, the appellant
moved the Sub-Registrar (Registration) seeking cancellation
E of the Deed of Extinguishment dated 9.8.2001. The SubRegistrar rejected the said prayer on two counts, namely, the
dispute between the parties was pending before the
competent authority under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1960 (for short 'the 1960 Act') and secondly, his jurisdiction
F was limited only to the extent of registering the documents and
if any party desired. its cancellation, then to verify that the
cancellation deed is registered on appropriate stamp paper.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 69
of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, "the Act"), which was
G rejected by the Inspector General (Registration) stating that
the powers conferred on Inspector General (Registration) under
Section 69 of the Act is limited to general superintendence of
the registration office and making rules and not to provide
hearing by any Sub-Registrar. The Inspector General further
H
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
933
intimated him that against the order of Sub-Registrar, it was
A
open to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings
before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant
preferred W.P. No. 13505 of 2008 before the High Court. The
prayer in the writ petition was for declaring the Extinguishment B
Deed as well as the subsequent sale deeds as void ab initio
with a further direction to the respondents to record the
cancellation of such documents. It was contended before the
High Court that the Extinguishment Deed was registered
contrary to the provisions contained in Section 17(1 )(b) of the C
Act by the Sub-Registrar and, therefore, it was obligatory on
the part of the higher authorities in exercise of powers under
Section 69 of the Act to declare the said action as ab initio
void and consequently the subsequent sale deeds to be void.
D
4. The said stand and stance of the. appellant was
resisted by the contesting respondents contending, inter alia,
that as the initial allottee, Smt. Veeravali Anand, did not take
any steps for 35 years to raise any construction on the plot in
question, the respondent no. 4 registered the Extinguishment E
Deed on 9.8.2001. On the strength of said deed, the
respondent society executed and registered the sale deed
dated 21.4.2004 in favour of Manjit Kaur. At that juncture, the
appellant and the respondents, to avoid any controversy,
entered into a deed of compromise dated 6. 7 .2004
whereunder the appellant received consideration of F
Rs.6,50,000/- (rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only); Rs.
4,50,000/- by demand draft and Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs by post
dated cheques. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application
under Section 64, of the 1960 Act before the Dy. Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, forming the subject matter of Dispute G
No. 81 of 2005. Along with said application, an application
under Section 57( 1) of the 1960 Act was filed for ad interim
injunction which was granted by the said authority on 1.2.2006
restraining the respondents to make any construction over the H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A
said property. The said order of injunction stood vacated by
order dated 12.4.2006. The said order vacating the order of
injunction was affirmed by the Joint Registrar and the Deputy
Registrar was directed to finally adjudicate the dispute.
5. As the factual matrix would unveil as the appellant
B
instituted many a legal proceeding against the respondents,
they issued a notice on 12.7.2007 asking him to refund the
consideration amount of Rs.6 lakhs. Against various orders,
the appellant preferred three special leave petitions, i.e. SLP(C)
No. 34857 of 2010, SLP(C) No. 13255 of 2012 and the present
C appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 9502 of 2012. The SLP(C)
No. 34857 of 2010 was preferred assailing the maintainability
of the revision petition and the said SLP is pending. SLP(C)
No. 13255 of 2012 relates to appointment of receiver to protect
his interest, which stood dismissed by order dated 17.7.2013.
D I shall refer to the said order in detail at the appropriate time.
6. The High Court took note of the factual assertions,
scanned the relevant provisions of the Act, took note of the
authorities cited by the appellant and eventually came to hold
E that the controversy raised by the appellant could be
adjudicated before the appropriate forum and not in the writ
proceeding. The High Court further held that the authorities
under the Act had correctly stated that they have no jurisdiction
to decide the soundness of registration of Extinguishment
Deed or the sale deeds and declare them as null and void.
F
7. I have heard Mr. Satya Pal Anand, appellant-in-person
and Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel for respondent
nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 5 to 7.
G
8. Though there are manifold assertions by the appellant
H
and counter asseverations covering various arenas, the core
issue that arises for consideration in the obtaining factual
matrix is whether the Deed of Extinguishment and the
subsequent sale deeds registered by the Sub-Registrar under
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
(DIPAK MISRA, J.]
935
the Act could be cancelled by the Sub-Registrar or by his A
superior authority in exercise of powers conferred under the
Act. There is no cavil over the fact that Extinguishment Deed
was registered on 9.8.2001 and subsequent sale deeds were
registered thereafter. The stand of the respondents is that they
had paid the amount to the appellant and there is a finding to
B
that effect in the Special Leave Petition that has been
dismissed by this Court.
9. Presently, I shall deal with the scheme of the Act.
Section 17 occurring in Part Ill of the Act deals with the
documents of which registrati9n is compulsory. The C
controversy pertains to Section 17(1 )(b) of the Act, as urged
. by th~ appellant. The said provision reads as follows:-
"17(1 )(b) other non-testamentary instruments which .
purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or D.
extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title
or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of
one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable
property;"
10. Sectiqn 18 of the Act deals with the documents of E
which registration is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with
the documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or
alterations. The said provision is reproduced below:-
"20. Documents containing interlineations, blanks,
erasures or alterations. - ( 1 ) The registering officer F
may in his discretion refuses to accept for registration
any document in which any interlineation, blank, erasure
or alteration appears, unless the persons executing the
document attest with their signatures or initials such
interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration.
G
(2) If the registering officer registers any such document,
tie shall, at the time of registering the same, make a note
in the register of such interlineation, blank, erasure or
alteration.
H
936
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
11. Section 21 of the Act provides for description of
property and maps or plans. The said provision is as under:-
"21. Description of property and maps or plans. (1)
No non-testamentary document relating to immovable
property shall be accepted for registration unless it
contains a description of such property sufficient to
identify the same.
(2) Houses in towns shall be described as situate on the
north or other side of the street or road (which should be
specified) to which they front, and by their existing and
former occupancies, and by their numbers if the houses
in such street or road are numbered.
(3) Other houses and land shall be described by their
name, if any, and as being the territorial division in which
they are situate, and by their superficial contents, the
roads and other properties on which they abut, and their
existing occupancies, and also, whenever it is
practicable, by reference to a government map or survey.
(4) No non-testamentary document containing a map or
plan of any property comprised therein shall be accepted
for registration unless it is accompanied by a true copy
of the map or plan, or, in case such property is situate in
several districts, by such number of true copies of the
map or plans as are equal to the number of such districts."
12. Section 22 deals with the description of houses and
land by reference to Government maps or surveys. The said
provision is as follows:-
"22. Description of houses and land by reference
to government maps of surveys. - (1) Where it is, in
the opinion of the State Government, practicable to
describe houses, not being houses in towns, and lands
by reference to a government map or survey, the State
Government may, by rule made under this Act, require
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
937
· that such houses and lands as aforesaid shall, for the
A
purposes of section 21, be so described.
(2) Save as otherwise provided by any rule made under
sub-section (1 ), failure to comply with the provisions of
section 21, sub-section (2) or sub-section (3 ), shall not
disentitle a document to be registered if the description
B
of the property to which it relates is sufficient to identify
that property."
13. Section 32 of the Act, which occurs in Part VI provides
for persons to present documents for registration. The said C
provision is reproduced below:-
"32. Persons to present documents for registration
- Except in the cases mentioned in sections 31,'88 and
89, every document to be registered under this Act,
whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall 0
be presented at the proper registration office-
( a) by some person executing or claiming under the same,
or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming
underthe decree or order, or·
(b) by the representative or assignee of such a person,
E
or
(c) by the agent of such a person, representative or
assign, duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed
and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned."
14. Section 32Aof the Act which has been inserted w.e.f.
24.9.2001, lays down compulsory affixing of photographs, etc.
Section 33 of the Act stipulates the power of attorney
recognizable for purposes of Section 32. Section 34 of the
F
Act provides for enquiry before registration by the Registering G
Officer.
15. I have referred to the aforesaid provisions to
understand the scheme of registration and the role of the
Registration Officer. It is urged. by the appellant that the
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A
Extinguishment Deed was registered contrary to the provisions
contained in Section 17(1) (b) of the Act and in a fraudulent
manner. Section 17(1 )(b) stipulates certain categories of
documents which are required fo be registered. It stipulates
registration of non-testamentary documents which purport or
B operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether
in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested
or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards,
to or in immovable property. It is contended by the appellant
that authority, on the ground offraud, can declare the deeds to
c be null and void. To bolster the said stand, he has drawn
inspiration from the authority in Yana/a Malleshwari v.
Anantula Sayamma1 (Full Bench). Before the Full Bench,
the question arose whether a person can nullify the sale by
executing and registering a cancellation deed and whetherthe
D Registering Officer like District Registrar and/or Sub-Registrar
appointed by the State Government, is bound to refuse
registration when a cancellation deed is presented. Rao, J.,
adverting to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and
dwelling upon the concept offraud held thus:-
E
"The person, who has ex facie right whether such right is
registered or not can always approach the registering
authority, with a request to cancel a sale deed, which
was registered earlier by such registering authority by
showing that subsequent registration was obtained by
F
fraud by a person who is not entitled to transfer the
property or that such transfer was registered by·playing
fraud on the owner or on the stranger. In the present
statutory dispensation, namely, Transfer of Property Act,
Contract Act, Specific Relief Act and Registration Act,
G
the Court does not see any prohibition operating on the
exercise of inherent power by the registering authority to
cancel the sale deed earlier registered, which is likely to
cause prejudice to the true owner as well as to the entire
public at large."
. H
1 AIR 2007 AP 57
. : ......
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
939
Chandraiah, J., while concurring with Rao, J. opined A
that:-
"I would like to reiterate that there is no specific prohibition
under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') to
register a deed of cancellation. The Registering Officer
8
.
can refuse registration in the situations arising under
. Sections 19 - 22, 32 and 35 and the relevant rules are
Rules 26, 58 and 117. But in all other cases where the
conditions under the Act i.e., Sections 17 and 18 of the
Act are fulfilled, the Registering Officer is bound to
register the document and it is not in dispute that the C
cancellation deed fulfills the conditions for the purpose
of registration. However, the Act does not permit the
Registering Officer to enquire. into the title of the party
presenting the document for registration and the
situations mentioned ill the above said provisions under D
which the registration can be refused are for different
purpose and only under those contingencies he can
refuse. This Court cannot enlarge the scope of these
provisions under the guise of interpretation of statute.
Further when there is no prohibition under the Act the E
Registering Officer has to register the documents
presented for registration in accordance with law and
this Court by judicial interpretation cannot impose the
same into the statute. It is well settled that what has not
been provided for in a statute cannot be supplied by F
Courts and to do so will amount to legislating which is
not the function of the Courts."
· 1 e. In the said case, the minority view is to the following
effect:-
"The purpose of noting down these provisions of TP Act
and the Registration Act is to come to a conclusion as to
whether a vendor retains any interest in the.property which
G
he sold and of which a sale deed was executed and
registered. The answer is emphatic 'no'. Therefore, in
H
..
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A
my view, when a person transfers all his rights, his rights
in the properly get extinguished and if he tries to get back
the property, it has to be done by challenging the sale
deed which he has executed and which is registered by
the Sub-Registrar."
B
c
17. It is apt to note here that in the said case, the majority
took the view that if a person is aggrieved by the cancellation
deed, his remedy is to seek an appropriate relief in the civil
court and the writ petition is not the proper remedy.
18. The High Court in the impugned order has also
referred to a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court
in E.R. Kalaivan v. Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai and Anfl. In the said case, the Division Bench took
note of the decision in Yanala Mal/eshwari (supra) and the
D Rule 26(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules that was
introduced after the verdict of the Full Bench. The Division
Bench dealt with decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
and the constitutional validity of the newly amended Rule, which
provides for adherence to the principles of natural justice when
E there is presentation of unilateral cancellation deed. The
Madras High Court observed that the situation is prevalent in
Andhra because of rule position and thereafter proceeded to
state thus:-
"In this context, we may also usefully refer to the judgment
F
of a learned single Judge of this Court in G.D.
Subramaniam v. The Sub-Registrar, Konur3. The
learned Judge has extensively considered the scope of
registration of cancellation of sale deed and had
ultimately held that such unilateral cancellation of deed
G
cannot be made in the absence of any specific provision
for the Registrar to do so. We are entirely in agreement
with the said view taken by the learned single Judge."
H
2 AIR 2010 Madras 18
3 2009 CIJ 243 Madras
SATYAPAL ANANDv. STATE OF M.P.
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
941
Be it noted, after so stating, the Division Bench opined A
thus:-
"That apart, on the facts of this case, our attention is not
drawn to any of the specific provision under the
Registration Act empowering the Registrar to entertain
a document of cancellation for registration on the ground
B
that the sale .consideration was not paid and
consequently, received by the vendor. Further, in our , ·
opinion, when the Registrar satisfies himself on the
perusal of the document, wherein it is stated that the full·
sale consideration is received and on such satisfaction, C
entertain the document for registration, cannot thereafter
be conferred with a power for cancellation of the deed
on the ground that the full sale consideration was not paid
and received by the vendor. Conferring such power on
the Registrar would tantamount to conferring a power to D
decide the disputed questions. That apart, as already
stated, in the absence of any provision specifically
empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of
cancellation for registration, without the signature of both
the vendor and the purchaser, the deed cannot be E
entertained. For the said reason, we find no infirmity in
the impugned circular issued by the Inspector General
of Registration."
19. In this regard, I may usefully refer to the judgment F
referred· in M. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub Registrar,
Bangalore and Anothe~. by a learned Single Judge of
Karnataka High Court. In the said case, the petitiener therein
claimed that he was the lawful owner of the property and the
concerned cooperative society had no right over the said site G
nor could it be sold by the said society in favour of the private
respondents. It was contended that the Sub-Registrar could
not have registered the sale deed relating to the said site in
favour of the second respondent. Anotice was sent to the
4 AIR 2000 Karnataka 46
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A
Sub-Registrar by the petitioner calling upon to remove the name
of the second respondent as purchaser of the site, but the said
request was not complied with by the concerned SubRegistrar. Being dissatisfied with the said inaction, a writ
petition was filed seeking appropriate direction to consider
B the demand contained in the notice. The learned Single Judge
while dealing with the concept of registration of instruments
under the Act, observed that:-
c
D
E
"The object and intent of providing for registration of
instruments under the Act is to create and maintain a
public record of transactions relating to immovable
properties, on which every person dealing with an
immovable property can rely with confidence, for a full
and complete account of the transactions by which his
title to 'the immovable property, may be affected.
Section 17 of the Act enumerates the documents of which
the registration is compulsory. All instruments (except
Wills) which purport or operate to create, declare, assign,
limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any
right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, in
regard to an immovable property, the value of which is
Rs. 100/- or more, and all Gift Deeds as also leases
relating to immovable properties for any term exceeding
one year, are compulsory registrable."
F
Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to various
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1885 and also of
the Act and concluded as follows:-
" ....... when .a. person who claims to be the owner or a
person interested in an immovable property, finds that·
G
someone else has executed and registered a sale deed
or other deed in regard to his property, claiming to be
the owner or a person interested in the property, the
appropriate course for him is to file a suit for declaration
and consequential reliefs. If he is satisfied such sale deed
H
is executed by a person without any title and that the deed
SATYAPAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
[DIPAK MISRA, J.)
943
is void ab initio, he may even choose to ignore the same A
and leave it to the person claiming title under such deed
to establish his title in appropriate proceedings. A Court
of Law has the jurisdiction to declare a document to be
void or even cancel a document. But under no
circumstances, a person claiming to be the owner of a B
property or a holder of a property, can require the
Registering Authority to cancel the registration of a
document."
20. In this context, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Tho ta Ganga Laxmi and another v.
C
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others5. In the said
case, the High Court of Andh.ra Pradesh had dismissed the
writ petition relying on the Full Bench decision in Yana/a
Mal/eshwari (supra). The father of the appellants therein had
purchased the plot in question from the 4'h respondent by a D
registered sale deed dated 21.6.1983 and since then they
were in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
Subsequently, the fourth respondent unilaterally registered the
cancellation deed without any notice to the appellants. A writ
petition was filed seeking declaration that the cancellation deed E
was illegal but the said writ petition was dismissed holding
that the appellants should approach the civil court. This Court,
in the said factual matrix opined:-
"ln our opinion, there was no need for the appellants to F
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 thatA had
the title to the land, that title passes to Bon the registration G
of the sale deed (retrospectively from the date of the
execution of the same) and B then becomes the owner5 (2010)15SCC207
H
944
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14S.C.R.
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."
Thereafter, the Court referred to Rule 26(k)(i) of Andhra
Pradesh Registration Rules framed under Section 69 of the
Act which reads as follows:-
"(1) 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."
After reproducing the Rule, the Court proceeded to
state:-
" A reading of the above Rule also supports the
observations we have made above. It is only when a sale
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
945
deed is cancelled by a competent court that the A
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 B
registration thereof were wholly void and non est and
meaningless transactions."
21. On a reading of the aforesaid judgment, two aspects
are noticed. It is evident from paragraph 4 of the judgment
that the Court has opined that the cancellation deed cannot be C
executed or registered; and in paragraph 5 of the said
judgment, reference has been made to Rule 26(k)(i) which has
been framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section
69 of the Act and on that basis, it has been ruled that the said
Rule supports the observations made by the Court. It is apt to D
note here that the case had arisen from the State of Andhra
Pradesh, where specific rule had come into force after the
pronouncement by the Full Bench in the case of Yanala
Mal/eshwari (supra). That apart the observations made in
paragraph 4 of the decision is of general import.
E
22. At this juncture, I think it apt to refer to Section 69 of
the Act, which reads as follows:-
"69. Power of Inspector-General to superintend
registration offices and make rules -
(1) The F
Inspector-General shall · exercise a general
superintendence over all the registration offices in the
territories under the 59 [State Government], and shall have
power from time to time to make rules consistent with
this ActG
(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and
documents;
(aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards
subject to which the books may be kept in computer H
946
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
floppies or diskettes or in any other electronic form under
sub-section ( 1) of section 16A;]
(b) declaring what language shall be deemed to be
commonly used in each district;
(c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be recognized
under section 21;
(d) regulating the amount offines imposed under sections
25 and 34, respectively;
(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in
the registering officer by section 63;
(f) regulating the form in which registering officers are to
make memoranda of documents;
(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and SubRegistrars of the books kept in their respective offices
under section 51;
(gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments
referred to in sub-section (2) of section 88 may be
presented for registration;
(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes
Nos. I, II, Ill and IV, respectively;
(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the
registration offices; and
0) generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars
and Sub-Registrars.
(2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the State
Government for approval, and, after they have been
approved, they shall be published in the Official Gazette,
and on publication shall have effect as if enacted in this
Act."
23. The Rule which I have reproduced has been framed
under the aforesaid provision and has been incorporated as
H
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P.
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
947
Rule 26(k)(i). The qu·estion that emerges for consideration is A
whether in the absence of any specific rule in the State of
Madhya Pradesh, the general principle laid down in the case
of Tho ta Ganga Laxmi (supra) would be applicable.
24. On a careful reading of the provisions of the Act, I do
not find there is any prohibition to register a document of B
cancellation or deed of extinguishment. Section 35 of the Act
which deals with procedure cannot be construed to confer a
quasi-judicial power on the registering authority. The learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in M.
Ramakrishna Reddy (supra) has observed that:-
C
" ... If a duly stamped document is presented for
registration with required registration fee (with supporting
enclosures required to satisfy the provisions relating to
valuation and payment of stamp duty under the Kamataka 0
Stamp Act, 1957 and the requirements of Section 230-A
or269-ULof Income TaxAct, 1.961 and Section 22-Aof
the Registration Act and Section 26 of Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 and any other relevant
statutory provisions), the Sub-Registrar will proceed to
E
register the document. Before registration, the
Registering Officer will peruse the document to be
registered and supporting documents (like tax paid
receipts, revenue register extracts and even copies of
earlier title deeds). But such incidental examination is F
not with the purpose of ascertaining or verifying the title
of the executant, but only to ensure that there is no
violation of Section 22-A of the Act and that there is
compliance with the statutory requirements under Stamp
Laws, Taxation Laws, Land Ceiling and Land Reforms G
Laws etc."
It is apt to note there that the learned Single Judge has
referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in Park View
Enterprises v. State of Tamil Nadu6, wherein it has been
6 AIR 1990 Mad 251
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A observed that function of the Sub-Registrar, for purposes of
registration, are purely administrative and not quasi-judicial
and, therefore, he cannot decide whether a document which
is registered is executed by a person having title as recited in
the instrument.
B
25. Thus, in the absence of any power conferred on the
Registering Authority to adjudicate any aspect, it is difficult to
agree with the view in Thota Ganga Laxmi (supra) that the
Registering Authority cannot unilaterally register a deed of
cancellation. In my considered opinion, in the absence of any
C rule like the one that is prevalent in the State of Andhra Pradesh,
which commands the Registering Officer to ensure atthe 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
D and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance
on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by
declaration showing natural consent, the Registering Authority
or the superior authority cannot refuse to register a deed of
cancellation solely on the ground that the claimant parties to
E the previously registered conveyance are riot present or they
have not given consent.
26.