Cancellation of a sale deed is invalid if done unilaterally and without notice after a significant period, affirming binding ownership established by the original deed.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP No.2529/2018 because, it has allowed the plea of the respondent herein – his former wife, and has declared her title and possession over the property covered by Ext.A1, after finding the alleged ‘revocation deed’ of the former -

namely Ext.A2, to be null and void.

2. Sri.R.T.Pradeep – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the property was originally purchased by his client using his own resources which he had obtained from his employment; and that, he then registered Ext.A1 Sale Deed in favour of the respondent, solely out of love and affection for her, as his wife. He submitted that, however, subsequently, things soured between the parties and that his client came to be aware that he was tricked into executing Ext.A1 by the respondent; and therefore, that he executed Ext.A2 - the Cancellation Deed, on the strength of which, the property stood ‘reverted’ to him. He argued that, in such circumstances, the learned Family Court ought not to have allowed the Original Petition, granting any of the reliefs sought for by the respondent.

3. In response, however, Sri.Sabu S.Kallaramoola – learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the facts, as pleaded and established before the learned Family Court, are to the effect that the property was originally purchased by the appellant in his name, but using the sale consideration which his client obtained by the sale of her properties in ‘Kattakada’ and ‘Pallichal’. He argued that, as manifest from the evidence, a house was constructed on the said property; and it was thereafter transferred in his client’s name because, as said above, the entire sums for its purchase and construction of the building, came from the property sold by her. He submitted that since the parties were not in matrimonial strife at that time, his client trusted the appellant and therefore, did not immediately rush and have the transfer of registry of the property done in her name; and that this was then taken advantage of by him, by executing Ext.A2, more than 16 years later, in the year 2012, to thus assert that he is the owner of the property, it having ‘reverted’ to him. The learned counsel argued that, from any angle of looking at it, the stand of the appellant is untenable, and he would not obtain any right over the property; consequently, that his client was constrained to approach the learned Family Court since the appellant was attempting to create a cloud over her title and to oust her from it, relying upon Ext.A2 document.

4. We notice that the learned Family Court allowed the parties to trial and recorded the evidence of the parties as RW1 and PW1 respectively. Further, on the side of the respondent, Exts.A1 and A2 were marked; while, on the side of the appellant Exts.B1 to B6 were.

5. The primary thrust of the arguments of the appellant, as submitted by his learned counsel – Sri.R.T.Pradeep, is that the property was originally purchased by him using his own resources and that he had not transferred it in favour of the respondent, but that she had created Ext.A1 using deceit. However, the evidence of RW1 - namely the appellant herein, is ineluctable to the effect that he had conveyed the property to his wife – who was the respondent at the time - in the year 1996; but that, when the marriage fell apart, he executed Ext.A2 Cancellation Deed, thus getting back the property for himself. The explanation offered by the learned counsel is that, since the amounts spent for the purchase of the property were from his client, he was entitled to cancel the Sale Deed and have the property to himself, albeit after 16 years of the registration of Ext.A1 Sale Deed.

6. As ineffable a