R. Subbiah, J.

1. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare that the deed of cancellation dated 06.11.2014 presented by the second respondent and which was registered as document No. 11796 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent is null and void. According to the petitioner, the second respondent herein has executed a settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 in favour of the petitioner which was registered as document No. 7152 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent. On execution of the settlement deed, the possession of the property covered therein namely land and building measuring 3440 square feet out of 6440 square feet in New Door No. 8 (3/8) in Plot Nos. 70 and 88 of Rajeswari Nagar, Porur, Chennai - 600116 comprised in Survey Nos. 38/part, 38/1A1B1 and 38/1A1B2 of Karambakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District was handed over to the petitioner by the second respondent. Further, on the strength of the settlement deed, the petitioner has mutated the revenue records and obtained Patta No. 2544 in his favour. It is stated that the petitioner is also paying the taxes and charges to the authorities concerned. It is further stated that the adjacent property measuring 2960 square feet of land was settled by the second respondent in favour of his daughter on the same day by executing another settlement deed. While so, on 30.06.2015, the possession of the property by the petitioner was interrupted by some strangers and therefore on 01.07.2015, the petitioner applied for encumbrance certificate. On going through the encumbrance certificate, the petitioner was shocked to see that the second respondent has cancelled the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 executed in his favour by executing a Deed of Cancellation deed dated 06.11.2014. According to the petitioner, prior to cancelling the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 executed in his favour, the second respondent has not intimated the petitioner or sent any notice regarding the proposed cancellation of the settlement deed. Hence, the unilateral cancellation made by the second respondent is bad in law.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the first respondent is estopped from executing the cancellation deed dated 06.11.2014 without any notice to the petitioner. On the strength of the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008, the petitioner has mutated the revenue records and asserted his right, interest and title over the property in question. While so, before cancelling the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008, the first respondent ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner expressing her intention to cancel the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008. In the absence of such notice or any other intimation, the cancellation deed dated 06.11.2014 is vitiated. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of D.V. Loganathan vs. The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Pallavaram, Chennai and Another, 2014 (3) CTC 113 to contend that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed 13.11.2008 executed in favour of the petitioner is bad in law and therefore the cancellation deed dated 06.11.2014 will not bind the petitioner in any manner. For the very same proposition of law, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on several other decisions rendered by this Court wherein it was held that an unilateral cancellation of an instrument, either gift deed, settlement deed or power of attorney is bad in law. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to allow the writ petition by declaring the deed of cancellation dated 06.11.2014 executed by the second respondent as null and void and unenforceable against the petitioner.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, relying on the counter affidavit of the first respondent, would contend that there i