D.SACHIDHANANDAM Vs. REGISTRAR/INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitions, which were listed on different dates, were heard, separately, but as the issue involved in all the writ petitions being common, questioning the registration of the cancellation deeds executed by the respective settlor in favour of the settlee and seeking cancellation of the said registered cancellation deeds, they are being dealt with by this common order.

(2.) In all the petitions, the respective petitioners have filed representation before the respective respondent/Registering authority for cancelling the deed in and by which the property settled in favour of the respective petitioners by execution of Settlement Deed was cancelled unilaterally by the Settlor without reference to the petitioners, who are the Settlees' by registration of the deed of cancellation and on the rejection of the said representation of the petitioners by the respondent/registering authority, aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing these petitions. Insofar as W.P. No.7866 of 2022 is concerned, the cancellation deed has been registered cancelling the release deed executed in favour of the petitioner and in all other aspects, the issue is similar to the other writ petitions.

(3.) The facts in the present case are broadly common, in that, due to the relationship between the respective settlor and the settlee, the respective settlement deeds have been entered into initially, either unilaterally or bilaterally, but at the instance and wish of the respective settlor, but after a period of time, the settlor had unilaterally cancelled the said settlement by submitting cancellation deed, which has been entertained by the Registering Authority leading to the registration of the said document. Though facts in the petitions are different, but as the issue relates to unilateral cancellation of the respective settlement deed by the registration of the respective cancellation deed, which, having been negatived, is put in issue before this Court and the said issue being a legal issue, this Court is not adverting to the individual facts.