The court ruled that the limitation for a suit to cancel a deed starts on the date the plaintiff became aware of the revocation, emphasizing Article 59 stipulates a three-year window for such actions under the LIMITATION ACT.

JUDGMENT :

P.T. ASHA, J.

1. The legal representatives of the defendants are the appellants before this Court.

2. The appeal arises in respect of the judgment and decree passed by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.238 of 2017 in and by which the learned Judge has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.6422 of 2013.

3. The suit is filed for the following relief:

“to declare the unilateral revocation dated 28.02.2006 Doc.No.832 of 2006 SRO; Anna Nagar, cancelling the settlement deed dated 14.07.2004 Doc.No.2934 of 2004 SRO; Anna Nagar is illegal, invalid, null and void not binding on the plaintiff”

4. The facts are set out in a nutshell below and the parties are hereinafter referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

5. The defendant is the father of the plaintiff and he had purchased the suit property from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 05.12.1984. Thereafter, along with the plaintiff's contribution, construction had been put up in the premises. The plaintiff would submit that his father, the defendant and himself were residing in the said property. The plaintiff would submit that he has two sisters (appellants herein) who have been given in marriage, spending substantial amounts. It is the plaintiff's case that, on account of the love and affection and the fact that the plaintiff was taking care of the defendant, the defendant had executed an irrevocable settlement deed dated 14.07.2004 in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff would submit that he has mutated the revenue records in his name and he has also permitted the defendant to occupy the premises along with him.

6. While so, all of a sudden on 28.02.2006, the defendant had cancelled the settlement deed and this had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff in December 2009 and the plaintiff has immediately issued a legal notice to the defendant on 27.12.2009. On 17.01.2010, the defendant had sent a reply containing false allegations and also stating that the settlement deed was executed as a collateral security and not voluntarily out of the free will of the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff would further submit that in May 2011, the defendant, in the presence of the well wishers, had undertaken to cancel the revocation deed and execute a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, subject to the condition that the plaintiff would alienate a part of the vacant site measuring 6 acres in Thakolam Village, Arakonam and to give Rs.10,00,000/- from out of the sale consideration to the defendant. The plaintiff had kept his promise and paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendant. However, the defendant went back on his words and refused to cancel the revocation deed. Once again, a panchayat was convened where the defendant flatly refused to revoke the cancellation deed. Hence the suit.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT:

7. The defendant had filed a written statement inter-alia denying the allegations contained in the plaint and raising the issue of limitation. The plaintiff would submit that the suit has been filed after a period of 3 years 10 months from the date of knowledge of the execution of the settlement deed. Even as per the plaintiff's statement, he had come into knowledge about the cancellation of the settlement deed in December 2009. However, the suit has been filed only on 25.10.2013. Further, the defendant had pleaded that the plaintiff had defrauded him into executing the settlement deed. The defendant has, in clear and categoric term