IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a settlement deed executed and registered is irrevocable unless valid grounds for cancellation exist, and that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, does not retroactively apply to deeds executed prior to its enactment.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 16.06.2017 made in A.S. No.291 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in reversing the decree and judgment dated 30.06.2015 made in O.S. No.5799 of 2011 on the file of 1st Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

The unsuccessful defendant in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction is the appellant.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The material facts that are necessary to adjudicate the Second Appeal are as hereunder.

3.1. The plaintiff and the defendant are sisters, being children of late Parthasarathy Naidu. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belongs to the father, Parthasarathy Naidu and he died on 17.05.2009, leaving behind three daughters and two sons as his legal heirs. The father, a widower, stayed with the plaintiff who was the last daughter and the plaintiff was taking care of the father in an excellent manner. In consideration of love and affection towards the plaintiff, the father executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, settling the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. However, when the plaintiff's father went to stay with the defendant, the defendant tortured her father and confined him in a small room without food and forced him to cancel the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff. On the same day of cancellation of settlement deed, the father executed another settlement deed settling the suit property equally to both the plaintiff and the defendant. Challenging the said documents and also seeking relief of injunction to protect her possession and to restrain the defendant from encumbering the suit property, the suit came to be filed.

3.2. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations and contending that after execution of the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, the father realised his mistake and in order to provide the defendant as well, he cancelled the settlement deed and executed the fresh settlement deed on the same date, benefiting both the plaintiff and the defendant equally. The defendant also denies the allegations of torture and confinement as alleged by the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court held that the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff had been acted upon and the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and therefore, partly decreed the suit by granting the relief of permanent injunction and observing that the defendant ought to have filed a suit for declaration of her title based on the subsequent settlement deed and suit for partition and separate possession.

5. On appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree granting relief of permanent injunction, the First Appellate Court, reversed the findings of the Trial Court and held that the plaintiff being already in a possession of the suit property cannot be the sole criteria to hold that the settlement deed was acted upon, since the plaintiff was already in possession of the suit property even on the date of the Ex.A1, settlement deed and the First Appellate Court, reversed the findings of the Trial Court.

6. Aggrieved by the said reversal findings, the defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal. The above Second Appeal is not yet admitted. However, I have heard Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the respondent for final disposal of the Second Appeal. I have also gone through the pleadings made available to me by way of typed-set which includes the Settlement deed marked as Ex.A1, Cancellation deed of settlement deed marked as Ex.A6 and Fresh settlement deed executed by the father in favour of the appellant marked as Ex.B1.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.G.Ethirajulu, would contend that