Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
D. Mohan & Another
Versus
The Sub Registrar, (District Registrar Cadre), Registration Dept. & Others
W.P.Nos.17182 of 2011 & 5046 of 2012 & MP.Nos.1 of 2011 & 1 of 2012
Decided on : 07-06-2012
Cancellation of Settlement Deed - Property Dispute - Registration Act, Transfer of Property Act - Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act, Public Policy and Registration Laws - Unilateral Cancellation of Deed - Gift Deed - Irrevocable Gift - Public Policy - Civil Court Jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, son of the original owner of a property, challenged the cancellation of a settlement deed in his favor by his sisters. The respondent No.2, the mother, executed a settlement deed and later cancelled it, leading to a property dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the settlement deed was against public policy and irrevocable as per Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. The registration of the cancellation deed was quashed, and it was ruled that the subsequent settlement deed could be challenged in civil court.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the cancellation of the settlement deed and the jurisdiction of the civil court in such property disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of an irrevocable gift deed, which did not fall within the exceptions under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, was against public policy. It ruled that a person without a right in the property cannot unilaterally cancel it and that such disputes should be resolved in civil court.
Final Decision: The registration of the cancellation deed was quashed, and it was clarified that the decision did not uphold the gift deed, leaving the option open for the respondents to challenge it in civil court.
1. As the common question of law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, these are being disposed of by common order.
For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from W.P.No.17182 of 2011.
2. The petitioner is the son of Mr. D. Thangam, respondent No.2, who was the original owner of the property bearing Plot No.31, Cresent Avenue, Kesavaperumalpuram, Greenways Road, Chennai 28, measuring about 4050 sq.ft. The property was acquired from City Co-operative Housing Society in the year 1961, in the name of Mr. B. Dharmarajan, and the possession of the property was handed over to the father of the petitioner after payment of the dues. The petitioner along with his two brothers took care of the family and also conducted marriages to his sisters in the year 1974 and 1980 out of their earnings. Both the sisters are well settled abroad and are foreign citizens.
3. The sisters of the petitioners visit India once in two years. In the year 1986, mother of the petitioner decided to give separate share to the petitioner and common undivided share to the brothers by sub dividing the property.
4. The second respondent executed the registered Will. The respondent No.2 also executed lease deed in favour of the petitioner for 25 years enabling him to construct the building for his personal residence.
5. The sisters of the petitioner had no objection for construction of residential complex in the share falling to the petitioner. The petitioner constructed the building after getting planning permission.
6. On 09.05.2008, the second respondent out of love and affection, executed settlement deed with all rights keeping in mind, the earlier Will and lease deed.
7. The case of the petitioner is that the sisters of the petitioner compelled the respondent No.2, to cancel the settlement deed and got registered the cancellation deed on 19.08.2010. After expiry of two years of deed of cancellation, the respondent No.2 created another settlement deed by dividing the property in equal shares including share for daughters on 24.09.2010.
8. The respondent No.4 and 5 thereafter asked the petitioner to demolish the house and develop it as flats which was not accepted by the petitioner.
9. The stand of the petitioner is that cancellation of settlement deed in favour of the petitioner is outcome of the mental torture by the sisters of the petitioner, even though the respondent No.2 had no such intention.
10. The registration of cancellation deed has been challenged to be violative of provisions of the Registration Act.
11. The writ petitions are opposed by the respondent No.2, by contending that the writ petitions are not competent, as the petitioner can go to civil Court to challenge the cancellation of settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed the settlement deed dated 09.05.2008 registered as Doc.No.1075 of 2008 by his father, but has only filed settlement deed in favour of the grandson Arvind which pertains to other property.
12. It is also the stand of the respondent No.2 that she had made it clear that the Will executed by her was intended to be revoked.
13. It is also submitted that her intention as well as her husband's intention was to divide the property equally.
14. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner and his brother asked the respondent No.2, to execute settlement deed as the Government was to give certain concession with the assurance that Will would also be revoked subsequently.
15. It was made clear by the respondent No.2 to her sons and daughters, that her intention was to divide the property equally and furthermore, she was assured by the petitioner and his brothers that the property will be divided equally.
16. She did not know to read and write english, so did not know about the settlement deed at the time of registration.
17. It was after her two daughters came from America and scrutinised the documents that it was disclosed that the settlement was in fav
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
