The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for resolution of disputed property rights and family disputes in the competent Civil Court, emphasizing the relevance of previous judgments in similar cases.

1. The first petitioner is the husband of the third respondent. The second petitioner is their grand son born through their son.

2. The third respondent owns 1.12 acres of lands at Guduvancherry in Chengalpet Taluk in Kanchipuram District and she also owns 12.70 acres at Chinnivakkam Village in Kanchipuram Taluk and District.

3. The third respondent executed a deed of power of attorney dated 27.06.2008 in favour of the first petitioner without mentioning any schedule of property and giving power to the first petitioner to present the documents for registration and admit execution of sale deed or any other deeds without giving the details of any properties.

4. According to the petitioners, the third respondent executed an irrevocable deed of Settlement on 11.12.2010 in favour of the petitioners in relation to the aforesaid properties. Whileso, according to the petitioners, the third respondent unilaterally cancelled the aforesaid settlement deed by way of cancellation deed dated 18.01.2012, which was registered in the Sub-Registrar's Office, Wallajabad. While cancelling the settlement deed dated 11.12.2010, the third respondent executed the sale deed on 18.01.2012 itself, in respect of the lands measuring 12.70 acres at Chinnivakkam Village, in favour of the respondents 4 and 5.

5. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to quash the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed dated 18.01.2012 bearing Document No.305 of 2012 and the sale deed dated 18.01.2012 bearing Document No.306 of 2012, on the file of the Sub-Registrar's Office, Wallajabad.

6. The third respondent filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. The respondents 4 and 5 have also filed another counter affidavit refuting the allegations.

7. According to the third respondent, she received various amounts on various dates from the 4th and 5th respondents as advance for sale of the lands measuring 1.12 acres at Guduvancherry and 12.70 acres at Chinnivakkam Village. The details of receipt of amounts are stated in the typed set of papers filed by the third respondent. According to the third respondent, the first petitioner was aware of the receipt of various amounts from the respondents 4 and 5.

8. The third respondent has stated that she executed the power of attorney dated 27.06.2008 in favour of the first petitioner being the husband to present the documents like Sale Agreements, Rectification deeds, Ratification deeds, Cancellation deeds, Exchange deeds, Mortgage deeds, Receipt deeds, Deposit of Title deeds as mentioned in the deed of power of attorney and the deed does not give power to the first petitioner in respect of execution of the Settlement deed. The third respondent has further averred that the first petitioner, utilising his position as the husband of the third respondent, made the Settlement deed dated 11.12.2010 in his favour without the knowledge of the third respondent and hence, the said Settlement deed does not bind the third respondent. It is also stated that divorce proceedings was initiated by the first petitioner against the third respondent and the same is pending in O.P.No.70 of 2012 before the First Additional Family Court at Chennai. Since the third respondent received various amounts from 4th and 5th respondents agreeing to sell the property and also executed the sale agreements on various dates, on 18.01.2012, the third respondent cancelled the Settlement deed dated 11.12.2010 and also executed the Sale deed in favour of 4th and 5th respondents.

9. The 4th and 5th respondents have filed common counter affidavit stating that they paid various amounts to the third respondent and also entered into the sale agreements with the third respondent in respect of the lands at Guduvancherry and Chinnivakkam Village. Those amounts were mentioned in the sale agreements. They further stated that they were not aware of the rift between the first petitioner and the third respondent and that the third r