High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-07-11Writ petition disposed of as above.

SOUTH INDIAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v ALEYAMMA ISSAC, M.G.MATHEWS, MARIAMMA MATHEW, ANNAMMA AUGUSTINE and THE SUB REGISTRAR, SRO, THIRUVALLA

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.9212 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Judgment Date: 2019-07-11
Court Decision / Holding: The court directed the Sub Registrar to strike off the cancellation entries from the records. It cautioned that the petitioner should not seek transfers or create any interest in the property for a period of one month to allow the respondents to approach the Civil Court for relief. The court left open that, upon a civil decree, the Sub Registrar may cancel the request for recording cancellation accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

South Indian Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Respondents

Aleyamma Isaac
M.G.Mathews
Mariamma Mathew
Annamma Augustine
The Sub Registrar, SRO, Thiruvalla

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
• SMT.ALEENA K BABU
• SMT.A.MEGHA
• SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a builder, pursuant to a contract with landowners (the respondents) obtained a registered Power of Attorney (POA) to develop and construct a building complex, with the POA coupled with the contract and the developer’s obligations. The deed fixed the consideration and acknowledged the land and development arrangement, including a clause that the POA would remain in force and not be revoked while the developer fulfilled its contractual obligations. Subsequently, the respondents unilaterally canceled the POA, and the Sub Registrar registered this unilateral cancellation. The petitioner challenged this in a writ petition, arguing that a deed of agency that is coupled with a contract cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the Sub Registrar and that such cancellation would undermine the contract. The court notes that registration authorities are not empowered to terminate contractual rights extrajudicially and that when a contract creates obligations, revocation requires civil relief. It references Noble John v. State of Kerala for the doctrine against unilateral cancellation of a contract’s power or authority. The court directs the Sub Registrar to strike off the cancellation from records and to refrain from processing any transfer or encumbrance requests for one month to allow the parties to seek civil remedies. The decision emphasizes safeguarding the parties’ rights pending a civil court determination, with the civil court adjudicating breach-related reliefs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (including 17(b) and 17(c))

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Cancellation of a deed of power of attorney executed by one party to a contract cannot be registered unilaterally by the Sub Registrar; such cancellation affects rights and obligations under the contract (public law remedy not to nullify a contract)
Power of Attorney executed for development is coupled with a contract and cannot be revoked unilaterally if the contract obligations remain fulfilled
The court deprecated registration of cancellation deeds executed by one of the parties to a contract, highlighting the need for civil court remedy in case of breach

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner-builder contends that the unilateral cancellation of the POA by the respondents and its registration by the Sub Registrar violates the contract that created the POA, and that a power coupled with a contract cannot be extinguished by unilateral action. It argues that cancellation should be avoided and that civil remedies exist for breach; the Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to cancel a contract-based instrument in public records and must strike off such entries, permitting the parties to pursue relief in Civil Court. The petitioner seeks preservation of rights and prevention of encumbrances until resolution in the Civil Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the POA contains a clause that, under certain conditions, revocation may be permissible? and that cancellation follows from the contractual terms. They assert the Sub Registrar’s action is consistent with the deed’s revocation provisions and aim to prevent encumbrance or transfer of rights, asserting the necessity to safeguard their rights pending civil adjudication. They rely on the contract provisions that could justify revocation or limitation on the POA.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Noble John v. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KLT 941	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that registration of a cancellation deed executed by one of the parties to a contract should not be allowed and that such cancellation cannot undo the contract without civil recourse.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SOUTH INDIAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v ALEYAMMA ISSAC, M.G.MATHEWS, MARIAMMA MATHEW, ANNAMMA AUGUSTINE and THE SUB REGISTRAR, SRO, THIRUVALLA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **SOUTH INDIAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., S.I.B.D.HOUSE, T.C.43/592-1, N.H.BYE PASS ROAD, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.SAMUEL VALIAVEETTLE SAMUEL, T.C.43/592-1, VALIAVEETTIL, N.H.BYE PASS ROAD, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.** **BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SMT.ALEENA K BABU SMT.A.MEGHA SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**ALEYAMMA ISSAC,**| |---|---| ||**W/O.RAJAMANI ISSAC, MUNJANATTU HOUSE,**| ||**THOTTABHAGOM, KAVIYOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 541.**| |**2**|**M.G.MATHEWS,**| ||**S/O.GEEVARUGHESE, MUNJANATTU HOUSE,**| ||**THOTTABHAGOM, KAVIYOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 541.**| |**3**|**MARIAMMA MATHEW,**| ||**W/O.MATHEW VARGHESE, MUNJANATTU HOUSE, THOTTABHAGOM,**| ||**KAVIYOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 541.**| |**4**|**ANNAMMA AUGUSTINE,**| ||**W/O.AUGUSTINE, MUNJANATTU HOUSE, THOTTABHAGOM,**| ||**KAVIYOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 541.**| |**5**|**THE SUB REGISTRAR, SRO,**| ||**THIRUVALLA, REVENUE TOWER ROAD,**| ||**THIRUVALLA - 689 101.**| **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** 2 **BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SHRI.ASHIK VISWANADH C. SMT.NITHYA VIJAYAN SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.T RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, GOVT. PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner herein is a builder. The petitioner entered into a contract with land owners, who are the party respondents. By virtue of a contract, a registered power of attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner. The relevant clause from the deed of power of attorney, required for disposal of the case, is extracted herein: WHEREAS our ATTORNEY who is allowed to develop and construct building as per statutory sanctions duly providing certain constructed superbuilt-up areas detailed and specified in the said agreement as consideration against leaving the SCHEDULE “A” land property/properties at the disposal of the said M/S SOUTH INDIAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED for the development and for the sale of the undivided interest of the said SCHEDULE “A” land property/properties and construction of apartments building thereon to us and for intending purchasers and this POWER OF ATTORNEY is to be considered as one coupled with interest and for the purpose of registration the value is fixed at Rs.21,98,300/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousands Three Hundred Only). The fair value of the land is Rs.1,23,500/- (One Hundred Twenty Three Thousands Five Hundred Only) per Are only. **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** 4 2. This shows that the power of attorney is not a mere contract agency, that involves a contract of mutual obligations. Necessary stamp duty applicable for conveyance was also levied on the power of attorney. 3. In the deed of power of attorney, following stipulations were made in respect of revocation: WHEREAS we further agree and confirm that this POWER OF ATTORNEY is executed in favour of our above said Attorney for the exclusive purpose of implementation of this envisaged construction of the BUILDING COMPLEX coupled with the interest of ourselves as the OWNER and our this ATTORNEY as the DEVELOPER and therefore there shall be no scope for revoking the POWER OF ATTORNEY if the agreement obligations of the DEVELOPER remain fulfilled. 4. Invoking this clause, party respondents canceled the deed of power of attorney. The Sub Registrar registered this unilateral revocation of the deed of power of attorney also. This action of the Sub Registrar is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 refers to **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** 5 registration of documents which are compulsorily registrable. This includes any instrument which purports to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right in present or future. This also includes a power of attorney that creates any power or right of management, administration, development, transfer or any other transaction relating to immovable property (See Section 17(b) and 17(c)). It has to be understood that the deed of agency is coupled with a contract for promises and obligations. 6. When there is a contract which creates obligations, the person who can revoke such contract, based on the terms of the contract, will have to approach the Civil Court for rescinding the contract. This is not an issue before this Court. This Court is now only concerned about the scope of action of the Sub Registrar in public law remedy. The observation as above only is made to point out that when there is a serious dispute in regard to the contract, the Sub Registrar is not competent to register a cancellation deed unilaterally executed by one of the party. **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** 6 7. When a deed contains terms and conditions in the nature of a contract, it would have substantial effect on the rights and obligations of the parties thereon. The Sub Registrar could not have registered a cancellation deed executed unilaterally by one of the parties, so as to nullify the contract of parties. This Court, in fact, in several judgments deprecated registration of cancellation deed executed by one of the parties of such contract. (See judgment in **Noble John** **v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 941]** ). In such circumstances, the Sub Registrar could not have registered the cancellation deed. The parties will have to work out their remedy before the Civil Court in regard to the breach of contract. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the registration of cancellation deed has to be struck off from the records maintained by the Sub Registrar. Accordingly, I direct the Sub Registrar to strike off such entries regarding cancellation from the records. 9. However, learned counsel for the respondents **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** 7 apprehended that, based on the deed of power of attorney, the petitioner may create an encumbrance or transfer the right and interest. I am of the view that this has to be safeguarded to enable the party respondents to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, the Sub Registrar shall not act upon the request of the petitioner, if any, made for transfer or creating any interest on the property, for a period of one month. This is to enable the party respondents to approach the civil court to seek appropriate reliefs. It is made clear that on the Civil Court adjudicating the matter, it is open for the Sub Registrar to cancel the request for recording cancellation of deed of power of attorney based on such decision of the decree of the civil court. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** jv **JUDGE** **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WHICH WAS AGAIN REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.396/2010/4 DATED 20/11/2010 IN THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, THIRUVALLA.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ALONG WITH THE DECEASED SARAMMA AND THE PETITIONER ON 15/12/2010.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/03/2018, ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 29/03/2018 TO EXT.P3 NOTICE.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/02/2018, ADDRESSED TO SMT.CHRISTINA RAJAN BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/05/2018 ADDRESSED TO SMT.CHRISTINA RAJAN BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/09/2018, ADDRESSED TO SMT.CHRISTINA RAJAN BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/02/2018 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/05/2018 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/09/2018 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2317/2014 DATED 11/08/2014, OF THE SUB REGISTRAR,** **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** 9 ## **THIRUVALLA.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1179/1/2014, DATED 08/04/2014, OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2222/2013 DATED 20/07/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1219/2013 DATED 18/04/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.243/1/2018 DATED 26/09/2018, OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 15/10/2018 TRANSFERRING THE FLAT IN FAVOUR OF RAJAMANI ISSAC, THE HUSBAND OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 26/09/2018 TRANSFERRING THE FLAT IN FAVOUR OF MATHEW VARGHESE THE HUSBAND OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 26/09/2018 TRANSFERRING THE FLAT IN FAVOUR OF PONNI MANOJ, THE DAUGHTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22/10/2013, WHEREBY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 HAD AGREED FOR EFFECTING MUTATION.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.61/19 DATED 05/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO SRI.RAJAMANI ISSAC.** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.1057/18 DATED 28/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO SRI.MATHEW VARGHESE.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.1056/18 DATED 28/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO SRI.MATHEW VARGHESE.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.1060/18** **WP(C).No.9212 of 2019** 10 **DATED 28/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO SRI.PONNI MANOJ.** **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.KL03050303452/2018, OF KAVIYOOR VILLAGE SHOWING THE THANDAPER NO.13294/T18 PERTAINING TO THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF RAJAMONY ISSAC.** **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.KL03050303505/2018, OF KAVIYOOR VILLGE SHOWING THE THANDAPER NO.13294/T19, PERTAINING TO THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF MATHEW VARGHESE. EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.KL03050303504/2018 OF KAVIYOOR VILLAGE SHOWING THE THANDAPER NO.13294/T20, PERTAINING TO THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF MATHEW VARGHESE. EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NS.KL03050303506/2019 OF KAVIYOOR VILLAGE SHOWING THE THANDAPER NO.13294/T21, PERTAINING TO THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF PONNI MANOJ. EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 25/11/2018 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BETWEEN SMT.CHRISTINA RAJAN, THE DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED SARAMMA. EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED NO.70/IV/2019 DATED 11/03/2019, REVOKING THE AFORESAID POWER OF ATTORNEY.**