Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is invalid without legal authority, and dismissal of a suit for default does not equate to a decree.

ORDER :

(V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)

This Writ Petition challenges the unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed. The cancellation deed had been registered in Document No.2963 of 2014 dated 28.10.2014.

2.There is no dispute in the relationship between the petitioner and the third respondent. The third respondent is the father and the petitioner is his son. The third respondent is the owner of the property in Survey Nos.50/4 and 50/8 of Magipalanpatti Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. He had purchased the same from two persons, namely, Gugan and Gopalan vide registered sale deed dated 03.10.2008 in Document No.2756 of 2008. The petitioner has other siblings.

3.The third respondent/father executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner in Document No.3324 of 2009 dated 17.11.2009. The relevant portions of the document are as follows:

4.After execution of a document, disputes arose between the parties. Therefore, the third respondent/father cancelled the settlement deed by way of a registered cancellation deed in Document No.2963 of 2014 dated 28.10.2014. On coming to know of the cancellation, the writ petitioner presented O.S.No.71 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Thirupathur. This suit was dismissed for default on 20.11.2019. Subsequently, due to the onset of the pandemic caused by Covid-19, the petitioner could not take further steps to prosecute the suit. Since the document continues to be on the file of the second respondent, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

5.The simple plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the settlement deed had been executed in the year 2009, it cannot be cancelled unilaterally in the year 2014. He relies upon the Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in M/S.Latif Estate Line India Ltd vs Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal and others , 2011 (2) CTC 1

6.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, on instructions, stated that it was not the intention of the writ petitioner to abandon the third respondent/father. He states that the writ petitioner will maintain the third respondent during his lifetime.

7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting third respondent points out that the Writ Petition is untenable on the following grounds:

(i) That the suit had been dismissed for default in the year 2019 and this Writ Petition has been filed in the year 2024 and hence, it is hit by laches and

(ii) The suit having been dismissed for default, it operates as a decree against the writ petitioner and hence principles of res judicata will apply.

8.The learned Special Government Pleader states being the State authority it will abide by any orders passed by this Court.

9.I have carefully considered the submission on both sides.

10.The execution of the settlement deed by the third respondent in favour of the writ petitioner is not in dispute. In fact, it cannot be disputed either because unless and until the settlement deed is executed, the question of cancellation of the said document does not arise.

11.It is the simple plea of the writ petitioner that having executed a settlement deed, unilateral cancellation thereof comes within the teeth of the Judgment of this Court in M/S.Latif Estate Line India Ltd vs Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal and others , 2011 (2) CTC 1 . On that score, I am entirely with the petitioner. Normally, on the execution of a settlement deed, there is a transfer of title. Once title has been transferred then, it cannot be divested from the decree, unless and until, there is another document of conveyance or a decree of a civil Court or an order of a competent authority empowered to order its cancellation. One party cannot unilaterally take the law into his own hands and set the clock back, without the support of a legally established authority or through the process of the civil Court.

12.The preliminary objection raised by the third respondent that there is a delay and laches in preferring this Writ Petition