The Kerala High Court ruled that there is no requirement that a trust deed cancellation be done in the same place where it was registered.
Justice Murali Purushothaman made this ruling while hearing a petition to quash a cancellation deed on the sole basis that it was not registered in the same place as the trust deed.
An association of family members decided to form the 'Chethikkattil Family Welfare Charitable Trust.' As a result, a trust deed was created.
A few months later, the trust deed's executor presented for registration a cancellation deed to cancel the trust deed.
The petitioners claim that the trust deed was registered with the Sub Registrar Office in Anthikkad, but the cancellation deed was registered in Vadakkumkara, 15 kilometres away from Anthikkad, where the trust property is located and the trust deed was originally registered.
The petitioners argued that such a cancellation deed registered in a different location is not legally enforceable.
On this basis, they sought to vacate the contested cancellation deed and direct the Sub Registrar, Vadakkumkara, to cancel, strike off, and remove the deed from the register maintained by him.
The respondent, on the other hand, relied on Section 29(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, to argue that the executant was free 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 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.
According to Section 29 of the said act, executors may 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 wish to register the document. Furthermore, Rule 186 of the Registration Rules (Kerala), 1958 states that when a document cancels a document that has already been registered in another office, a memorandum must be sent to that office.
The Bench found that, following the registration of the cancellation deed, the respondent sent a memorandum to the Anthikkad Sub Registrar Office, where the trust deed was registered by the Sub Registrar, Vadakkumkara, as required by Rule 186.
As a result, satisfied that the respondent had met the requirements of Rule 186, the petition was dismissed.
The court stated, "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.”
In this case, Advocate C. Harikumar represented the petitioner, while Advocate T.M Chandran represented the respondents.
CASE - C.K. Saseendran & Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors.
.webp)
