IMPORTANT POINT
A settlement deed requires acceptance by the donee to be valid, and unilateral revocation is not permissible if the deed has been acted upon. Additionally, rights conferred by a compromise deed can limit the scope of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

The plaintiff before the Trial Court is the appellant herein, and the defendants of the suit are arrayed as respondents herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, which give rise to the instant Second Appeal is that, the plaintiff and one Kanagasundaram are husband and wife. Due to matrimonial discord, they later separated While so, the said Kanagasundaram executed a settlement deed dated 12.09.1955 settling the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. It was recited in the settlement deed that the same will come into operation only from the date when both of them are actually getting divorce. In pursuance thereof, a dissolution of marriage deed was entered on 08.06.1957. As a result of which, the settlement deed dated 12.09.1955 become acted upon. According to the plaintiff, by virtue of the settlement deed and dissolution of marriage deed, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property. In the meanwhile, taking advantage of the plaintiff's absence in the suit property, the said Kanagasundaram has fraudulently and unilaterally executed a cancellation of Settlement Deed and had also sold the property to the defendants. It is the submission of the plaintiff that the said Kanagasundaram did not have any right to unilaterally cancel the Settlement deed dated 12.09.1955. Therefore, when the property became the absolute property of the plaintiff, through the sale deed executed by Kanagasundaram, these defendants cannot derive any title over the same. Since the defendant has created cloud over her title, the plaintiff has come forward with a suit for declaration and for delivery of possession and also for mandatory injunction.

4. The said suit was resisted by the defendants by contending that though a settlement deed dated 12.09.1955 was executed by Late Kanagasundaram, the settlement deed did not come into operation as Kanagasundaram was all along residing in the suit property. It was also the contention of the defendants that, subsequent to the settlement deed, there was a compromise between the plaintiff and the defendants on 28.03.1969, and that by virtue of such compromise, the plaintiff was only given life estate over the suit property. It was also submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff did not take possession of the property nor accepted the gift. It was also further stated that there was no dissolution of marriage between the plaintiff and the said Kanagasundaram so as to confer title upon the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant submitted that the said Kanagasundaram has every right to execute the cancellation of settlement deed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff has examined 2 witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked as many as 6 documents as Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the defendant, one witnesses were examined as DW1, and 15 documents have been marked as Exs.B1 to B15.

6. The Trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, has found that the said Kanagasundaram did not have any right to unilaterally cancel the settlement deed. As a concomitant, the Trial Court further found that Kanagasundaram has no right to execute any sale deed in favour of the suit property, and ultimately, decreed the suit as prayed for. Not satisfying with the judgment of the Trial Court, when the defendants 1, 3 and 4 have preferred the First Appeal, the First Appellate Court has found that the settlement deed dated 12.09.1955 has not at all been acted upon and that such factum could be inferred through compromise entered between the plaintiff and the defendants on 28.03.1969. Therefore, reversed the finding of the Trial Court with a finding that when no title was transferred to the plaintiff, in view of no valid dissolution of marriage between the plaintiff and Kanagasundaram, the said Kanagasundaram has retained his a