The legal effect of a cancellation deed executed to cancel a settlement deed and the interpretation of Ext.B1 as a gift deed.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is the second defendant in O.S.No.1480/2007 on the files of Additional Munsiff Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 100 and Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the C.P.C.’ hereinafter).

2. The appellant assails decree and judgment in the above suit, dated 28.2.2013 and the appellate decree and judgment, dated 12.3.2015 in A.S.No.124/2013 on the files of the Additional District Court – V, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as ‘plaintiffs’ and 2nd defendant’, for convenience.

6. As per order, dated 17.11.2015, my predecessor admitted this appeal on the questions of law posed in the second appeal.

7. Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property and also recovery of possession of the same, on the strength of title. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs obtained title over the plaint schedule property on the strength of a settlement deed No.1986/1995 of Kazhakkoottam SRO, executed by one Bennappan, who is the father of the 1st plaintiff and husband of the 2nd plaintiff. The further contention raised by the plaintiffs is that, subsequently, the 1st defendant, who is the mother of Bennappan, cancelled the settlement deed No.1695/1995, which was executed by her, in favour of Bennappan, as per cancellation deed No.2647/1996 and later, executed a sale deed No.554/2007, in favour of the 2nd defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the cancellation deed as well as the subsequent sale deed are null and void. Therefore, plaintiffs prayed to declare the said documents are null and void. Later, the plaint was amended seeking recovery of possession of the property from the 2nd defendant.

8. Defendants 1 and 2 jointly filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties in the plaint. According to the defendants, Bennappan violated the terms of the settlement deed and he did not care the whereabouts of the mother. Accordingly, the settlement deed in favour of Bennappan was cancelled and the 2nd defendant got title and possession over the plaint schedule property, in view of sale deed No.554/2007.

9. The court below raised necessary issues and recorded evidence. No oral evidence let in by the parties. Evidence confined to that of documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the plaintiffs. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the defendants. The trial court addressed the rival contentions on the basis of evidence tendered and finally granted decree as under:

“In the result, the suit is decreed.

(1) It declared that the cancellation deed No.2647/96 and sale deed No.554/2007 of SRO, Kazhakuttom are Null and Void and those documents do not affect the title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint scheduled property.

(2) It declared that the plaintiffs have absolute right over the plaint scheduled property by virtue of settlement deed No.1986/95 of SRO, Kazhakoottam.

(3) The plaintiffs are allowed to recover possession of the plaint scheduled property from the 2nd defendant on the basis of their title, through the process of law.

In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no orders as to cost.”

10. Even though appeal as A.S.No.124/2013 was filed before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the same also was dismissed.

11. On hearing both sides, substantial questions of law to be precised are as under:

1. What is the legal effect of a cancellation deed executed to cancel a document with nomenclature ‘settlement deed’?

2. Whether Ext.B1, relied upon by the plaintiffs conferred title upon Bennappan?

12. In this case, originally, the property belonged to the 1st defendant, who is none other than the mother of Bennappan. Ext.B1 is document No.1695/1995 executed by the 1st defendant in favour