Registered Under Registration Act Cannot Be Nullified Through An Unregistered And Notarised Cancellation: Delhi High Court

“A deed of relinquishment which has been registered under the Registration Act cannot be nullified through an unregistered and notarised cancellation; such a document carries no legal force in the eyes of law.” - Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a preliminary decree of partition passed in favour of the respondent brother, holding that the registered relinquishment deed executed by the siblings in 2010 stood on firm legal ground. The Court rejected the attempt to reverse this relinquishment on the basis of a subsequent unregistered and notarised deed of cancellation, calling such actions “legally unsustainable and procedurally invalid.”

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the decision of the Single Judge in CS(OS) 359/2022, reiterating the principle that “registered instruments affecting immovable property cannot be undone except by another registered instrument or a decree of a competent court.”

“Pleading of Fraud Cannot Be a Blank Canvas Painted with Vague Allegations”

The appellants had attempted to challenge the relinquishment deed dated 03.03.2010 by claiming it was executed under fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence. The Court, however, noted the complete absence of any specific particulars of the alleged fraud. Relying on Ranganayakamma v. K.S. Prakash (2008) 15 SCC 673, the Bench observed:

“The plea of fraud is general in nature. It is vague. When such representations were made, what was the nature of representation, who made them, and what type of representations were made, have not been stated.”

The Court highlighted that Order VI Rule 4 CPC mandates detailed particulars of fraud to be pleaded, and in this case, the pleadings were too casual and general to satisfy the legal threshold. It further emphasized that the plaintiffs had not sought cancellation of the registered document in any independent proceeding, which further weakened their position.

“A Notarised Deed of Cancellation Is a Legal Non-Entity — It Cannot Revoke a Registered Instrument”

The most significant legal issue was whether the appellants’ attempt to cancel the relinquishment deed by executing a notarised, unregistered ‘Deed of Cancellation’ dated 17.05.2012 had any legal effect. The Court was unequivocal:

“The deed of cancellation is unregistered and only bears the stamp of the Notary Public. It does not affect the rights of the Respondent under the registered relinquishment.”

Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Court clarified that any transaction or document that impacts right, title, or interest in immovable property exceeding ₹100 in value must be registered. Since the cancellation document was not registered, it did not and could not undo the registered relinquishment executed earlier.

The Court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on subsequent relinquishment deeds from other siblings in their favour, holding that no right could be transferred unless the earlier relinquishment was first validly revoked or cancelled — which was not done.

“Benami Claims Require More Than Mere Allegation — No Proof, No Title”

The appellants further argued that certain properties — including a shop purchased in 1993 and agricultural land bought in 2010 — were benami properties, allegedly bought by the respondent using family funds. The Court dismissed these arguments outright, noting that no bank records or financial transactions were presented to support the claim.

“The appellants have failed to demonstrate the fiduciary character of the property or substantiate claims of purchase through family funds.”

The Court rejected the invocation of Section 2(9)(A)(b)(ii) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, noting that family relationship alone is insufficient to establish a fiduciary duty. The facts failed to prove that the respondent held the property in trust for anyone else, and therefore, the Benami plea fell flat.

Citing Savita Anand v. Krishna Sain and Anil Bhasin v. Vijay Kumar Bhasin, the Court reiterated that a mere allegation of joint family ownership is not enough — the burden of proof lies squarely on the party alleging benami transaction.

“Partition Suit Cannot Be a Trojan Horse to Undo Registered Conveyances”

The Court strongly rebuked the misuse of a partition suit as a substitute for cancellation proceedings, noting that the appellants had not challenged the 2010 relinquishment through any proper legal route.

“The only remedy available to the executant of a deed for cancellation of a registered instrument is to institute appropriate proceedings before a competent Court, which was not done.”

Without any declaratory suit or action under the Specific Relief Act, the Court held that the claim of ownership or co-ownership was not legally maintainable.

“Equity Does Not Arise When Law Is Clear” — Court Limits Partition to Mangolpuri Property

While rejecting the claim over the shop and agricultural land, the Court confirmed the appellants’ right to partition in one property — the Mangolpuri house, which had devolved on all siblings after their parents' death. The preliminary decree passed by the Single Judge for this ancestral property was upheld, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to explore whether physical partition was feasible.

“The Registered Document Stands — The Appeal Does Not” — Appeal Dismissed in Entirety

The Delhi High Court, through this decision, reaffirmed the importance of procedural compliance, registration formalities, and strict legal standards in matters of property rights, fraud, and benami claims. Concluding its ruling, the Court stated:

“The appeal is without merit. It is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.”

Date of Decision: 23rd September 2025