SATYA PAL ANAND versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 14 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 25-08-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 Sub-
Registrar (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 possessi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.