Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed after acceptance is void; only a civil court can adjudicate its validity, reaffirming registered gifts remain unless annulled legally.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P11 and for a direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to revoke Ext.P4 cancellation deed within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner's father Sri.Fazal Haque was the owner of 10 Ares 75 Sq. Metres of property in Survey Nos.413/5/1 & 413/4/1 of Keezhattingal Village in Chirayinkeezhu Taluk. On 14.06.2000 petitioner's father executed Ext.P1 settlement deed No.1129/2000 of Kadakkavoor SRO, in favour of the petitioner, transferring the above said landed property to the petitioner. Petitioner accepted Ext.P1 and effected mutation in his favour and was paying tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1, as evident from Ext.P2 tax receipt. A possession Certificate was also issued in the name of the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P3. While so, in the year 2011, the petitioner's father unilaterally executed Ext.P4 cancellation deed, cancelling Ext.P1 without the knowledge of the petitioner. The application submitted by the petitioner's father for effecting mutation on the basis of Ext.P4 was rejected by the Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezhu, as per Ext.P5. Later, the petitioner's father died on 15.07.2014, and the petitioner's mother also died on 21.01.2021. Respondents 4 to 7 are the siblings of the petitioner. Petitioner submits that respondents 4 to 7 have no claim over the property under Ext.P1. Petitioner would further submit that he has taken a loan, mortgaging the property covered by Ext.P1, from Canara Bank and that the Bank has initiated proceedings and approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the said property.

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father has no right to execute a unilateral cancellation deed as Ext.P4 after the petitioner has accepted Ext.P1 settlement deed and effected mutation, and the 2^nd respondent was legally bound to refuse registration of Ext.P4 under Rule 67 or Rule 191 of the Registration Rules (Kerala). It is also contended that it is settled law that once a settlement or gift deed is registered in accordance with law, the only alternative available to the vendor is to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the same under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 . Petitioner would submit that the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of the Apex Court in Thotta Ganga Lekshmi Vs. Government of Andra Pradesh 2011 (3) KLT 345 and Division Bench of this Court in Hamsa P.A. Vs. District Registrar General, Kozhikode and others 2011 (3) KHC 342, which held that unilateral cancellation of a deed, which is duly transferred and conveyed is not in accordance with law. Petitioner also relies on the judgment in Arun CA v. Inspector General Department of Registration , Vanchiyoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram2024 KHC Online 7254 in support of his contention. It is also submitted that this Court, in a similar situation, has considered the issue and held, as per Ext.P9 judgment in WP(C) No.3809 of 2021, that the cancellation deed is to be held as non est and void. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent praying to revoke Ext.P4 cancellation deed by filing Ext.P10 petition, but by Ext.P11 order, the request of the petitioner was rejected, wherein the petitioner was directed to approach the Court for redressal of his grievance. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent, District Registrar, and based on the same, the lear