SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
R. Shridar - Petitioner
Versus
The Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore North Joint I, Coimbatore & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.8075 of 2025
Decided On : 08-04-2025
.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Venugopalraj.
For the Respondents: Mr. U. Baranidharan, SGP, Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, SC for Mr. M. Sriram

Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is void unless explicitly allowed in the document; the nature of such documents determines rights and responsibilities without ambiguity.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 126 - Writ petition challenging the unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed - Court emphasized that a unilateral cancellation is void and cannot be registered unless the donor reserves such right in the document. (Paras 41-43, 20-24)

(B) Settlor's authority - Settlor must explicitly retain the right to revoke for unilateral cancellation to be valid, failure to do so renders the cancellation invalid. (Paras 21-24)

(C) Nature of documents - A settlement deed cannot be treated as a Will without explicit provisions. (Paras 10 & 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a cancellation deed executed by his sister regarding a property settlement, claiming no right to unilaterally cancel the deed as it had been executed with full authority and had been acted upon by handing over title deeds.

Findings of Court:
The court found the cancellation deed illegal as it lacked the necessary provisions for revocation, and confirmed that the original settlement deed remained valid.

Issues: The main issues were whether the original settlement deed was conditional and whether the unilateral cancellation was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the settlor retained no right to cancel the deed since it was not conditional and had been acted upon, leading to the invalidation of the cancellation deed.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to cancellation of settlement deed. (Para 1 , 3)
2. parties' arguments regarding settlement deed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis of the nature of the deed. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14)
4. analysis of legal principles regarding vested interests (Para 13)
5. legal principles around revocation of settlement deed. (Para 18 , 21 , 23)
6. arguments presented regarding the deed's nature and settlor's intentions (Para 19 , 20)
7. final ruling on the nullity of the cancellation deed (Para 24)
8. writ petition allowed due to illegal cancellation. (Para 27 , 29)

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed dated 25.11.2024 registered as doc. No.8210 of 2024 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to remove the entries in respect of the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed from the concerned register.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(i) The petitioner's elder sister, who is none other than the mother of the second respondent, executed a gift settlement deed dated 24.11.2023 registered as doc.No.8608 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent in respect of the property measuring 10,347 sq.ft. situated at Ward A, Anupparpalayam in T.S.Nos.1304/2, 1304/4, 1304/5, 1304/7, 1305/1, 1305/3 & 1305/5 and in block No.25 in T.S.No.1305/2. The original title deeds were handed over to the petitioner along with the settlement deed dated 24.11.2023 executed in his favour .

(ii) Later, the settlor namely the elder sister of the petitioner unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed dated 24.11.2023 through a cancellation deed dated 25.11.2024 registered as doc.No.8210 of 2024 on the file of the same first respondent. This is put to challenge in this writ petition.

4. Initially, this Court allowed the above writ petition by order dated 12.3.2025 by following the Full Bench judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in the case of Sasikala & Others Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer & Others [reported in 2022 (7) MLJ 1]. After the disposal of the above writ petition, a mention was made on the side of the second respondent to the effect that the said order dated 12.3.2025 was passed without affording an opportunity to the second respondent, who has some valid grounds to put forth before this Court. Accordingly, the matter was listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' on 19.3.2025, on which date, the said order dated 12.3.2025 was recalled and the above writ petition was restored to file.

5. Pursuant to the said order dated 19.3.2025, a counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein he took the following stand :

(i) The petitioner is the maternal uncle of the second respondent and under the guise of providing treatment to the mother of the second respondent, the petitioner managed to get the settlement deed 24.11.2023 executed in his favour. Thereafter, the petitioner did not take care of the settlor and consequently, based on the rights reserved under the settlement deed dated 24.11.2023, the settlor cancelled the same through the cancellation of settlement deed dated 25.11.2024.

(ii) Further, a fresh settlement deed was executed in favour of the second respondent even on the same day in respect of the subject property and it was registered as doc.No.8211 of 2024 on the file of the same first respondent thereby the second respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and it has been let out and the second respondent has been receiving the rental income. That apart, mutation of revenue records also took place and the name of the second respondent is reflected in the revenue records.

(iii) The settlement deed dated 24.11.2023 is a conditional one and the rights were reserved by the settlor to cancel the same. Sin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top