A unilateral cancellation of a Settlement Deed is impermissible if the deed has been accepted and acted upon, as established by legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Pathanamthitta, which has declared rights over the petition schedule item No.2 property (hereinafter referred to as the “property”) in favour of the respondent; further declaring that Ext.A2 Deed of Cancellation executed by him is null and void.

2. The appellant alleges that the declarations made by the learned Family Court are improper in law; and hence that the further order of prohibitory injunction issued against him, from dispossessing the respondent herein from the property, is also beyond forensic competence. He thus prays that the judgment and decree be set aside.

3. Sri.R.S.Sarat – learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the edifice of the respondent's case before the learned Family Court, in O.P.No.1015/2016, was that she is the owner of the “property” on the strength of Ext.A1 - “Gift Deed” executed by his client in her favour; but that, this is untenable since, the latter had cancelled the said document through Ext.A2 Deed, three months after it had been executed. He argued that, when Ext.A1 “Gift Deed” had not taken effect - with the respondent not having taken possession of the “property”, or transferred its registry in her name - it was wholly within his client's competence to have executed Ext.A2 Cancellation Deed, thus to cancel the gift which he had made in favour of the respondent.

4. Sri.R.S.Sarat further explained that Ext.A1 “Gift Deed”, was executed by the appellant under the hope that the parties would live together as husband and wife, which is manifest from the covenants therein to the effect that it was being done on account of his affection and love for the respondent; but that, to his dismay, she refused to comply with her obligations in the matrimonial union, thus constraining him to execute Ext.A2 - Cancellation Deed. He concluded his submissions saying that, Ext.A1 was within the competence of his client to have cancelled because, it was a conditional “Gift Deed”, there being a condition incorporated in it that the respondent cannot sell the “property” without his written permission any time in the future. He thus reiteratingly prayed that this appeal be allowed.

5. Sri.Manu Ramachandran – learned Counsel for the respondent, refuted the afore submissions, asserting that the facts stated by Sri.R.S.Sarat are not accurate or complete. He explained that there were two properties involved between the parties; and that his client had filed O.P.No.435/2014 on the files of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta (which was initially filed before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, and transferred), wherein, she sought for declaration of title of another extent of property, which had been purchased by the parties in their joint names with the sums she obtained by sale of her paternal share. He submitted that, it was when that Original Petition was pending, that the appellant herein declared before the learned Family Court that he had executed Ext.A2 with respect to the “property” in question; and that this came as a shock to her, thus forcing her to file the Original Petition, from which the impugned judgment has emanated.

6. Sri.Manu Ramachandran then proceeded to his next argument that Ext.A1 is not a “Gift Deed”, but, a Settlement Deed; and that it was executed in his client's favour because its purchase was financed by the sale of her gold ornaments given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. He, however, conceded that this has not