Whether sale deed can be unilaterally cancelled by vendor by executing cancellation deed?

 The legal decision in this regard has also been reiterated in various other judgments as in Hamsa P.A. v. District Registrar General, Kozhikode (2011 (3) KHC 6). It has been held in paragraph 14 thereof, that the vendee cannot be divested of his title by the unilateral act of cancellation of the sale deed by the vendor. Even on cancellation of the sale deed, the vendor would not get title to the property and only the vendee can confer title to the vendor. It has also been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the common final order dated 14.3.2018 in IA. No. 227/2018 in Mat. Appeal. No. 778/2012 & IA. No. 2336/2015 in Mat. Appeal. No. 16/2013 that such unilateral cancellation of deeds is ultra vires in provisions of the Registration Act and Rules framed thereunder and is null and void etc.

7. In the instant case it is also relevant of bear in mind that Annexure 1 settlement deed was executed by Kunjamma in favour of James on 28.6.2002. The said James died on 3.10.2003. It is after the death of James that his mother Kunjamma has executed and got registered Annexures 2 & 3 cancellation deeds on 5.8.2005 & 7.2.2011. Therefore when the abovesaid Kunjamma had executed cancellation deeds Annexures 2 & 3, James was no longer alive and there was no question of any bilateral execution and registration of cancellation deeds with his consent etc. Annexures 2 & 3 cancellation deeds have not been executed with the consent of the petitioner and her daughter, who are the LRs of late James. Therefore it is only to be held that Annexures 2 & 3 are null and void and ultravires and at any rate it cannot bind James or his legal heirs like petitioner and her daughter Juliet James etc. There is no question of divestment of the title of James conferred on him as per Annexure-1 merely on account of Annexures 2 & 3 and therefore the same has no legal effect on the rights of the parties based on Annexure 1 settlement deed. of course if such bilateral cancellation of the deed is not possible due to difference of opinion between the parties, then certainly the remedy of the aggrieved person is to institute a civil suit before the competent court with civil jurisdiction seeking cancellation of the deed, in the manner known to law.

8. Accordingly it is ordered that the stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P-3 that the settlement deed proposed to be exeucted and registered by the petitioner in favour of her daughter in respect of the properties covered by Annexure 1 settlement deed, cannot be registered in view of the cancellation deeds as per Annexures 2 & 3 are illegal and ultra vires.

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(Before Alexander Thomas, J.)

Lali Yohannan  v. State of Kerala, 

W.P. (C) No. 37908 of 2018

Decided on November 29, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 8056

Print Page

Whether accrued right in favour of landlord can be taken away by tenant by his unilateral act?

In our opinion, the ratio laid down in the above cases applies to the present case as well. Admittedly, on the date the tenancy was terminated, the tenant (Public Limited Company) was having a paid up share capital of rupees more than one crore. Under clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the Act, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the suit-premises. It is true that a resolution was passed by the Company to reduce the paid up share capital to less than rupees one crore, but the said resolution was never approved by BIFR. But even otherwise, once it is proved that the tenancy was legally terminated and the Act would not apply to such premises, a unilateral act of tenant would not take away the accrued right in favour of the landlord. Unless compelled, a Court of Law would not interpret a provision which would frustrate the legislative intent and primary object underlying such provision. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the courts below.

Supreme Court of India

Carona Ltd vs M/S Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons on 5 October, 2007

Bench: C.K. Thakker, P. Sathasivam

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  2805 of 2005

Print Page

Whether coparcener can unilaterally throw his separate property in common stock of joint family property?

 Further, the decision of Orissa High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. Harish Chandra Gupta, decided on 02.02.1981 was relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants, wherein, it was held as under:

"The separate property of a Hindu ceases to be separate property and acquires the characteristics of a joint family or ancestral property not by any physical mixing with his joint family or his ancestral property but by his own volition and intention by his waiving and surrendering his separate rights in it as a separate property. The act by which the coparcener throws his separate property in the common stock is a unilateral act. There is no question of either the family rejecting or accepting it. By his individual volition, he renounces his individual right in that property and treats it as a property of the family. No sooner than he declares his intention to treat his self- acquired property as that of the joint family property, the property assumes the character of joint family property. The doctrine of throwing into the common stock is a doctrine peculiar to the Mitakshara school of Hindu law".

Delhi High Court

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma And Ors. on 29 October, 2013

Author: M. L. Mehta

Citation;AIR 2015 (NOC)895 Delhi

Print Page