Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. HEMALATHA, J.
Ramayee - Appellant
Versus
Karnan (Deceased) - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1655 of 2001
Decided On : 23-10-2018
R. Selvakumar, Adv., L.P. Balaji Ram, Adv.
The main legal point established is that a settlement deed, once acted upon, cannot be unilaterally cancelled, and the acceptance of the transfer by the settlement deed creates a presumption of its execution.
Headnote:
Settlement Deed - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, Section 126, Section 127 - The court discussed the irrevocability of settlement deed, the presumption of its execution, and the conditions for revocation. It highlighted the legal provisions of Section 126 and Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act and their interpretations in the context of the case. The court emphasized that a settlement deed, once acted upon, cannot be unilaterally cancelled and analyzed the evidence to conclude that the settlement deed was indeed acted upon, leading to the restoration of the original decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought declaration of her title to a property and a permanent injunction against the defendant's interference. The defendant claimed that the settlement deed in favor of the plaintiff was cancelled and a sale deed was executed in his favor, leading to a dispute over possession and ownership of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement deed was irrevocable once acted upon, and the cancellation deed by the settlor was unilateral and invalid. It concluded that the settlement deed was indeed acted upon, and the second appeal was allowed, restoring the original decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance and revocation of the settlement deed, the possession and enjoyment of the property, and the validity of the cancellation deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a settlement deed, once acted upon, cannot be unilaterally cancelled. It emphasized the importance of analyzing the evidence to determine the execution and acceptance of the settlement deed.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the original decree in favor of the plaintiff.
R. HEMALATHA, J.
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.470 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Perambalur who is the respondent in A.S.47 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Perambalur has filed the present second appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are called as per their ranking in the original suit in O.S.No.470 of 1990 before the District Munisif, Perambalur.
3. The plaintiff Ramayee (Pw1) is daughter of one Nagammal. Nagammal executed a settlement deed dated 10.08.1989 (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the settlement deed was acted upon and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendant Karnan (Dw1) is attempting to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. She has therefore, prayed for declaration of her title to the suit property situate in S.No.619/1 of Parambalur, measuring Acres 1.74 out of Acres.5.20 within the boundaries stated in the plaint schedule and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.
4. The defendant filed a written statement contending that though late Tmt. Nagammal executed a settlement deed (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiff, the same was cancelled by her through a cancellation deed dated 29.01.1990 (Ex.B2). According to him, a sale deed dated 07.02.1990 (Ex.B1) was executed by Tmt. Nagammal in his favour in respect of the suit property and that ever since the date of sale, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is further contended by him that the settlement deed was not acted upon.
5. The trial court after full contest decreed the suit vide its decree and judgment dated 23.09.1993 in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.47 of 2001 before the Principal District Judge, Perambalur. The said appeal was allowed vide decree and judgment dated 30.07.2001 and the decree and judgment dated 23.09.1993 of the trial court was set aside.
6. Now, the present second appeal is filed on the following substantial questions of law.
Whether the lower appellate court is right in rejecting Ex.A1 accepting the oral evidence, particularly, in the absence of any finding as to Ex.B1 and Ex.B2?
However, the only point for consideration is,
whether there was acceptance of gift by the donee and whether the settlement deed was acted upon?
7. At the outset, it may be observed that the original settlement deed is produced by the appellant/plaintiff and the same is marked as Ex.A1. A perusal of Ex.A1 also shows that it is irrevocable. It is trite law that when a property is settled under a registered settlement deed and the setlee accepting the transfer by the settlement deed, it is presumed to be acted upon. Once the settlee accepts transfer, the delivery of possession is not necessary. Moreover, the settlement deed cannot be cancelled, once deed of settlement is acted upon. In S.Ganesan Vs. Barathirajan reported in, (2009) 5 CTC 558, this court has held that unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is void.
8. The main contention of the defendant is that since the plaintiff failed to maintain her mother, the settlor, the settlement deed was cancelled on 29.01.1990 (Ex.B2) by the settlor. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that there is no condition to maintain the settlor and the gift is not also an onerous gift. it is also seen that late Nagammal had cancelled the settlement deed through a cancellation deed dated 29.01.1990 (Ex.B2) unilaterally. No notice was issued to the plaintiff before cancellation. It is not the case of the defendant that the settlement deed (Ex.A1) is a sham and nominal document. In fact, he was in know of the execution of settlement deed (Ex.A1), prior to the sale (Ex.B1) made in his favour by the said Nagammal. In view of the fact that the settlement deed
