A settlement deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless the settlor expressly reserves such a right; otherwise, the cancellation is void.

ORDER :

(N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.)

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. Since the petitioner did not comply with the condition of taking care of the settlor, she was constrained to enforce her right to cancel the settlement deed dated 24.11.2023 and she did so. That apart, even though the document has been given the nomenclature of a settlement deed, in effect, it can be construed only as a Will, which can be cancelled at any point of time during the life time of the executor. Ultimately, the second respondent sought for dismissal of this writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submission