No Stipulation That Cancellation Deed Has To Be Done At The Same Place Where Trust Deed Was Registered: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has ruled that there is no stipulation that a deed of cancellation of a trust deed has to be done at the same place where it was registered. Justice Murali Purushothaman held so while dealing with a plea seeking to quash a cancellation deed on the sole ground that it was not registered at the same place where the trust deed was registered. An association of family...
The Kerala High Court has ruled that there is no stipulation that a deed of cancellation of a trust deed has to be done at the same place where it was registered.
Justice Murali Purushothaman held so while dealing with a plea seeking to quash a cancellation deed on the sole ground that it was not registered at the same place where the trust deed was registered.
An association of family members decided to convert into a Trust by the name 'Chethikkattil Family Welfare Charitable Trust'. Accordingly, a trust deed with a capital of Rs.10,000/- was registered.
A few months thereafter, the executant of the trust deed presented for registration a cancellation deed for cancelling the trust deed.
According to the petitioners, the trust deed was registered with the Sub Registrar Office, Anthikkad, but the cancellation deed was registered at Vadakkumkara, 15 km away from Anthikkad where the trust property is situated and the trust deed was originally registered.
The case of the petitioners was that such a cancellation deed registered at a different location is not legally sustainable.
On this ground, they sought to quash the impugned cancellation deed and for directing the Sub Registrar, Vadakkumkara to cancel, strike off, and remove the deed from the register maintained by him.
The respondent however relied on Section 29(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, to argue that the executant was at liberty to present such documents either at the Sub Registrar Office of the Sub District where the document was executed or at any other Sub Registrar Office in the State where they desire to register the document and that there was nothing unusual about the registration of cancellation deed at Vadakkumkara.
The Court noted that going by Section 29, the executants are at liberty to present such documents either at the Sub Registrar Office of the Sub District where the document was executed or at any other Sub Registrar Office in the State where they desire to register the document.
Further, Rule 186 of the Registration Rules (Kerala), 1958 provides that when a document cancels a document previously registered in another office, a memorandum shall be sent to that office.
The Bench found that the respondent after the registration of the cancellation deed had sent a memorandum as required under Rule 186 to the Anthikkad Sub Registrar Office where the trust deed was registered by the Sub Registrar, Vadakkumkara.
Hence, being satisfied that the respondent had met the conditions of Rule 186, dismissed the petition.
"Without prejudice to the petitioners' right, if any, to take recourse to any legal remedies as may be available in law, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs."
Advocate C. Harikumar appeared for the petitioner in the matter, while Advocate T.M Chandran represented the respondents.
Case Title: C.K. Saseendran & Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors.