Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1937

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Palaniammal – Appellant
Versus
Thasi @ Sukkadan – Respondent
S.A.NO.696 OF 2021 AND C.M.P.NO.13932 OF 2021
Decided on : 22-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.C.Jagadish
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Jayaprakash, Mr.S.Shanmuga Sundaram for Mr.L.Parvin Banu

A Settlement Deed executed with irrevocable terms cannot be unilaterally cancelled, and its interpretation must consider the entire document and the parties' intentions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - The plaintiffs challenged the First Appellate Court's ruling that a Settlement Deed was a Will, asserting that the deed was irrevocable and had been acted upon. The Trial Court found the Cancellation Deed invalid due to unilateral cancellation. (Paras 6, 26)

(B) Property Law - Settlement Deed - The court reaffirmed that a Settlement Deed executed with irrevocability cannot be unilaterally revoked, and the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the property were upheld. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, wife and daughter of the 1st defendant, claimed ownership of the Suit Property based on a Settlement Deed executed in 1983, which the 1st defendant later attempted to cancel. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Cancellation Deed was void.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's judgment was upheld, confirming the Settlement Deed's validity and the plaintiffs' rights to the property.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Settlement Deed was valid and whether the Cancellation Deed could be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Settlement Deed was irrevocable and had been acted upon, thus invalidating the unilateral Cancellation Deed.

Result: Second Appeal allowed, confirming the Trial Court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated January 27, 2021 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Paramathi reversing the Judgment and Decree dated March 21, 2019 made in O.S.No.99 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramathi.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated January 27, 2021 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2019 by the 'Subordinate Court, Paramathi' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated March 21, 2019 passed in O.S.No.99 of 2012 by the 'District Munsif Court, Paramathi' [henceforth 'Trial Court'] was reversed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE:

3. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are the wife and the daughter of 1st defendant respectively. The 2nd defendant is the daughter of one Karuppayee, with whom the 1st defendant was in a relationship with, however 2nd defendant was not born to 1st defendant. The Suit Property is separate property of the 1st defendant. On September 7, 1983, the 1st defendant executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff in respect of Suit Property and the same was accepted and acted upon. Title Deeds were handed over to the 1st plaintiff and she got into joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property along with 1st defendant. Revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiffs and they have been paying Kist. The 1st plaintiff had filed a Suit in O.S.No.174 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Paramathi, seeking permanent injunction inter alia against the said Karuppayee’s father, who is 1st plaintiff’s neighbouring land owner too, and obtained Decree dated March 26, 1999 in her favour in respect of Suit Property.

3.1. While the said Settlement Deed stipulated that the 1st defendant cannot cancel it, on the ill advice of said Karuppayee, 2nd defendant and others, the 1st defendant cancelled it vide Cancellation Deed dated February 22, 2012 and executed two Settlement Deeds, one in favour of 2nd plaintiff and another in favour of 2nd defendant. The defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs of the Suit Property under the guise of the aforesaid three documents, which are void. On April 29, 2012, the defendants and their men attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs of the Suit Property. Hence the Suit for declaration that the said Cancellation Deed is null and void, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or evicting or dispossessing the plaintiffs of the Suit Property, for costs and for other reliefs. To be noted, permanent injunction is sought for without any prejudice to the 1st defendant’s joint possession and enjoyment with 1st plaintiff.

DEFENDANTS' CASE:

4. The defendants filed written statement denying the plaint averments. According to the defendants, Suit Property is self-acquired property of 1st defendant. The 1st plaintiff used to often quarrel with the 1st defendant and leave for her maternal house. Hence, the Settlement Deed dated September 7, 1983 was executed sham and nominally on the condition that she shall live along with the 1st defendant, that too on the insistence of the 1st plaintiff. However, the 1st plaintiff did not live along with the 1st defendant and she never got into joint possession and enjoyment of Suit Property. Therefore, the Settlement Deed dated September 7, 1983 was never acted upon. Since the 1st plaintiff failed to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in the Settlement Deed dated September 7, 1983, 1st defendant has got every right to cancel it. The 1st defendant married the said Karuppayee with the consent of 1st plaintiff in vaigasi month of Tamil calendar in 1977 and in their wedlock, the 2nd defendant was born. The Cancellation Deed dated February 22, 2012, executed for equitable division of Suit Proper