R. Mahadevan, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned unilateral cancellation of settlement deed, dated 01.02.2013, in Document No. 137/2013, registered with the first respondent and quash the same. Heard both sides.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, are as under:

2.1. The case of the petitioner is that the properties in S. Nos. 73/15 and 33 to an extent of 1 cent, situated at No. 77, Anthoniyar Koil Street, Nadiambalpuram, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District, originally belonged to the father of the petitioner and after his demise, they devolved upon the brothers of the petitioner. Thereafter, the above said property was allotted to the second respondent by way of oral partition and he executed a settlement deed in Document No. 56/2013, dated 11.01.2013, in favour of the petitioner. Now, the daughter of the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, on 16.03.2013, the second respondent illegally tried to evict the daughter of the petitioner, on the ground that on 01.02.2013, he had unilaterally cancelled the said settlement deed dated 11.01.2013. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 11.02.2013, but, in vain. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

2.2. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is, inter alia, contended that the first respondent has no authority to look into the veracity of the documents produced for registration and there is no bar for registering the deeds of cancellation of settlement and therefore, the first respondent has rightly registered the deed of cancellation of settlement of the second respondent as there is no provision under the Registration Act, to reject or refuse any such documents and prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.

2.3. Denying the claim of the petitioner, the second respondent filed the counter affidavit stating that the alleged settlement deed dated 11.01.2013 had been executed by the second respondent under coercion and since the same is not valid in the eye of law, he has executed the deed of cancellation of the settlement dated 01.02.2013 and if the petitioner is having any grievance, she has to work out the same before the competent civil Court and hence, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.

3. Mr. S. Deenadhayalan, learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:

3.1. The deed of cancellation of the settlement executed by the second respondent is invalid in law as it has been unilaterally executed without notice to the petitioner.

3.2. Once the settlement deed has been executed, the transferor has no right at all to cancel the same by way of cancellation deed.

3.3. The first respondent failed to consider the fact that the settlement deed executed by the second respondent ought to have nullified only by the competent civil Court.

3.4. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in B.K. Rangachari v. L.V. Mohan 2015 (2) T.N.C.J. 183 (MAD) : LNIND 2015 MAD 451 : (2015) 3 MLJ 446 he contended that the settlement deed cannot be cancelled unless either one of the elements of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion is present and such revocation is also possible only through a civil Court.

3.5. Hence, he prayed for quashing the impugned unilateral deed of cancellation of settlement dated 01.02.2013 in Document No. 137/2013.

4. Whereas Mr. K. Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, reiterated the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that the first respondent ought not to have rejected the documents filed for registration before him and hence, he cannot be found fault with and the petitioner has to work out her remedy before the competent civil forum and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.

5. Per contra, Mr. D.R. Murugesan, learned Counsel for the second respondent, placing reliance on