Madras High Court
Samiappan vs Rajamani on 17 November, 2014
Author: Satish K. Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K.Agnihotri, K.K.Sasidharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.11.2014
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN
W.A.No.1395 of 2014
1. Samiappan
2. S. Mohanasundaram
3. Minor M. Vetrivel,
rep. By his Guardian & Mother
Poongothai ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Rajamani
2. The Sub Registrar,
O/o Sub Registrar,
Aval Poondurai,
Erode District. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed against order dated 03.07.2014 made in W.P. No. 34452 of 2012.
For Appellants : Mr. N. Manoharan
For Respondents : ----
JUDGMENT
Challenge before the Writ Court was to the cancellation deed dated 23.6.2010 executed by the first appellant wide document No.4648 of 2010 on the file of the second respondent cancelling the settlement deed dated 15.12.2000 and further consequential gift deed dated 23.7.2010 wide document No.5603/2010 on the file of the second respondent.
2. The facts in brief are that the first appellant is the father and the second appellant is the brother of the writ petitioner/ first respondent herein. By a settlement deed dated 15.12.2000, bearing Registration No. 2861/2000, the land measuring an extent of 1.62 acres in R.S.No. 361 and 1.09 acres, in R.S.No.362/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 of Aval Poondurai Village, Erode Taluk, totalling 2.71 acres was gifted in favour of the writ petitioner by the first and second appellants in lieu of payment of debts incurred by them along with accrued interest. In addition to the payment of the loan obtained by the appellants 1 and 2, the writ petitioner had also paid cash directly for agricultural and family expenses on various occasions. On execution of the settlement deed, the land in dispute was transferred and thereafter, the writ petitioner became the absolute owner of the said land. Necessary revenue entries were also made accordingly. The writ petitioner has been enjoying the cultivation on the said land thereafter. All of a sudden, without any information to the writ petitioner, the cancellation deed was executed by the second appellant wide document No.4648 of 2010 dated 26.3.2000, which was duly registered on the file of the second respondent. According to the writ petitioner, she came to know about the cancellation of the said settlement deed in the month of September 2012. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner came up with the writ petition before this Court seeking for afore stated relief.
3. The learned Single Judge, having examined the case and also having considered the submissions advanced by the parties, held that the gift was executed for proper and valuable consideration by way of settlement deed dated 15.12.2000. The writ petitioner/ first respondent herein had acquired the right on account of the said settlement deed. Thus, without notice or information to the writ petitioner, the subsequent cancellation deed, which was under challenge, is unsustainable in Law. The learned single Judge, relying on a decision of this Court in D.V. Loganathan Vs. - The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram, Chennai-44 reported in (2014 (3) CTC 113), held that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed was bad in law and the registration by the registering authority cannot be held as legal and proper. It was further observed that if a party seeks cancellation of the settlement deed granted earlier, the only remedy available is to approach the Civil Court to set aside the same. But the same cannot be undone unilaterally by the executor of the said settlement deed without any information to the beneficiary.
4. We have perused all the documents, pleadings and the order sought to be impugned in this writ appeal carefully.
5. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the gift was executed by way of a settlement deed not out of love and affection but on payment of consideration and value. It is also not in dispute that after execution of the settlement deed dated 15.12.2000, the ownership of the land in question was transferred in favour of the writ petitioner, which, she has been enjoying continuously. The relationship between the parties is not relevant when the father and the son transferred the ownership of the land in favour of the daughter or sister for consideration and value. Thus, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the settlement deed so executed and acted upon cannot be set at naught unilaterally by one party. The only course open to a party is to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief. We do not find any inconsistency or irregularity or illegality in the order dated 3.7.2014 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 34452 of 2012, which is sought to be impugned in this intra Court appeal.
6. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs.
(S.K.A.J.,) (K.K.S.J.,)
17.11.2014
ra
Index: Yes/No
To
1. The Sub Registrar,
O/o Sub Registrar,
Aval Poondurai,
Erode District.
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,J.
and
K.K.SASIDHARAN,J
ra
W.A.No.1395 of 2014
17.11.2014