The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare that the impugned Deed of Cancellation, dated 10.11.2014, registered as Document No.3328 of 2014 on the file of the second respondent, as null and void and non-est in law.

2. According to the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 ought not to have registered the impugned cancellation deed, cancelling the settlement deed already registered, when the property in question has devolved upon the petitioner by means of settlement deed, dated 10.06.2005. It is true that the property was purchased on 27.10.1983 by the third respondent. According to the petitioner, there was no notice from the Registrar Office and that when there is disputed questions of fact involved, the same has got to be resolved only in the Civil Court. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that he married the third respondent in 1977 and after their marriage, the third respondent purchased the property, which is the subject matter of the dispute that had been settled in his favour and thereafter, the cancellation of deed, cancelling the settlement deed, was registered by the second respondent. The property was registered by means of an irrevocable clause in the settlement deed, dated 10.06.2005, registered as Document No.1577 of 2005 in the office of the second respondent and the petitioner took possession of the property, that there was mutation of the records and the petitioner has been paying the charges to the Government authorities after the said registration of the settlement deed. It is submitted that as per the settlement deed, it is clear that the property has been vested with the petitioner and the same was settled in his name by means of love and affection, as the petitioner being the husband of the third respondent, in a sound mind and without any coercion from any quarters and that the settlee, namely the petitioner was put in possession of the said property with all powers of alienation and that the property hereby settled was free from encumbrance, lis-pendens, etc. It is further submitted that when once the property has been settled in the name of the petitioner by the third respondent, unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed by the respondents 1 and 2 on 10.11.2014 after a decade is illegal and that this Court may issue a Writ of Declaration that the deed of cancellation dated 10.11.2014, registered as Document No.3328 of 2014 on the file of the second respondent, is null and void.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the third respondent, by filing counter affidavit, contended that believing that the petitioner would be a genuine person and to meet out the loan to enable him to commence the business, the settlement deed was effected and that the property has been purchased out of her own funds and savings, and at no point of time, the petitioner has contributed any money. It is true that the third respondent married the petitioner on 02.09.1977. The third respondent was working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and out of her own earnings, she has purchased the property in 1983 by means of sale deed in document No.1358 of 1983, registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Mylapore. The contention of the petitioner that he helped the third respondent to put up superstructure over the property, is not correct and that when the building was in a dilapidated condition, the third respondent, out of her funds, took efforts to demolish the building and reconstructed the same. Due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and the third respondent, that the petitioner has not shown any love and affection to the family members, that there was a disruption in the family, that the petitioner has started living in Tiruvannamalai, that the petitioner has duped the third respondent and usurped the property by means of settlement deed, that the property belongs to the third respondent and that the first and second respondents are empowered