Unilateral cancellation of a document transferring property rights is not valid.

M. DURAISWAMY, J.

1. The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 128 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur. The first defendant has filed the above appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, the first defendant had died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs are the respondents 1 to 5 and the defendants 2 to 5 are the respondents 6 to 9. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 128 of 1983 for declaration that the “B” schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs and subsequently directing the first defendant to deliver the possession of the “B” schedule property and for past and future damages.

2. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-

(i) According to the plaintiffs, the “A” schedule property belonged to M.C.K.S. Chidambara Nadar and his son C. Subbiah Nadar. Alagarsamy Asari, husband of the first plaintiff purchased the “A” schedule property as a vacant site from the said persons. Alagarsamy Asari purchased the eastern portion under a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1950 and subsequently on 12.2.1961, he purchased the western portion under a registered sale deed. After purchase, Alagarsamy Asari constructed a building and completed the same on the southern portion of the “A” schedule property in or about the year 1962. Alagarsamy Asari was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the entire “A” schedule property with the buildings thereon constructed by him. On the northern side, Algarsamy Asari constructed the building on the western portion in or about the year 1972. “A” schedule property and the buildings thereon are the self-acquired, separate properties of Alagarsamy Asari.

(ii) The defendants are the sons of Alagarsamy Asari through his first wife Gomathiammal. The first plaintiff is the second wife of Alagarsamy Asari. After the death of his first wife, Alagarsamy Asari married the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the children of Alagarsamy Asari and the first plaintiff. Alagarsamy Asari had another son by name Bangarusamy, who left the family about 25 years ago and from then, his whereabouts are not known. Since he was not heard for more than 25 years, under law he will be presumed to have been civilly dead.

(iii) The first defendant, after marriage, had no separate house to live in with his wife and children. Alagarsamy Asari permitted his son – first defendant to live in a portion of Door No. 16/3A, free of rent. While so, Alagarsamy Asari settled the entire “A” schedule property to the plaintiffs out of love and affection under a registered settlement deed for self and on behalf of the plaintiffs 2 and 3, who were the minors then and also on behalf of the minor plaintiffs 4 and 5.

(iv) The property described in the “B” schedule property is only a portion of the “A” schedule property. The “B” schedule property consists of a building bearing Door No. 16/3A and piece of vacant site. After the settlement deed, the plaintiffs became entitled to the entire “A” schedule property including the “B” schedule property.

(v) The plaintiffs came to know that the first defendant had fraudulently caused a document purported to be cancellation deed of the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs executed by Alagarsamy Asari on 27.2.1978. The cancellation deed was executed by Alagarsamy Asari to cancel the settlement deed executed by him on 25.11.1977. Pursuant to the settlement deed, the assessment of the property was transferred in the name of the first plaintiff. On 24.2.1979, the plaintiffs issued notice to the first defendant revoking the licence granted to him and calling upon him to deliver the possession of the “B” schedule property. The plaintiffs also filed the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 59 of 1980 for eviction of the first defendant from the “B” schedule property. Since the first defendant refused to vacate the premises and also raised a cloud over the plaintiffs