Once a gift deed is accepted and acted upon, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled, and subsequent transactions based on such cancellation are not legally sustainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.73 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur dated 30.11.2016 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 made in O.S.No.45 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur and allow the second appeal.)

Defendants 3,4, 6 to 9 are the appellants.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.45 of 2007 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur for the relief of cancellation of the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2003 passed in O.S.No.74 of 2003 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants. The plaintiff further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 to 8 and their legal heirs from alienating the suit schedule property to the second defendant or any other third party. The plaintiff had further prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any persons claiming any right derived from them from putting up any construction or building over the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court as prayed for. Defendants, 3,4, 6 to 9 filed A.S.No.73 of 2012 before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur. The learned District Judge Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

3. The plaintiff /Municipality had contended that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by the third defendant Educational Trust. They formed a lay out called as Sri Ramalingasamy Educational Trust layout. The said layout plan was approved by the appropriate authority namely the Director of Town and Country Planning Department. According to the plaintiff, in the said layout, two plots were reserved for park. The suit property is one among the two. The plaintiff had further contended that the trustees/lay out promoters executed a gift deed on 23.04.1997 in favour of Thanjavur Municipality and handed over the possession of the same with regard to the said plot. The gift deed was accepted and acted upon by plaintiff Municipality. Based upon the said gift deed, the property was classified as Children Play Field and it was notified under the Tamil Nadu Parks and Plays Fields Act. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Government order on 15.05.1996 and the same was published in Thanjavur District Gazette in October 1996. Thus, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property and he is in effective possession and in enjoyment.

4. The Municipality further contended that the trustee of the third defendant had executed a registered cancellation deed on 27.06.2001 by cancelling the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff municipality. The said cancellation deed is unilateral, illegal and void. After cancellation of the said gift deed, the third defendant trust has entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant. Based upon the said sale agreement, the first defendant had filed O.S.No.74 of 2003 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur for specific performance. The said suit was taken on file on 16.05.2003. On 17.06.2003, the third defendant trust filed a memo submitting to the decree and prayed one month time to execute the sale deed. Based upon the said memo, the judgment and decree were passed on 24.06.2003 on the date of first hearing itself. According to the plaintiff, the said decree is fraudulent and collusive in nature and it will not confer any title upon the first defendant.

5. The plaintiff had further contended that based upon the said collusive decree, the first defendant had filed E.P.No.461 of 2003 and the third defendant remained exparte and a sale deed was executed by the Court on 04.03.2004 in favour of the first defendant. Thereafter, E.A.No.170 of 2004 was filed for taking delivery of the suit property and even in the said proceeding