Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is impermissible and requires judicial intervention for nullification.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Under assail is the writ order dated 05.02.2024 made in W.P.No.2482 of 2024.

2. The writ petitioners are the appellants. The facts in nutshell show that the father of the appellants 1 to 4 had executed a settlement deed dated 13.06.1976 in favour of the 1^st appellant Mr.Sekar. Subsequently, the settlor late Angamuthu unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed by executing a cancellation deed on 05.09.1990. The settlor late Angamuthu died on 28.11.2016. After the death of the settlor, his legal heirs have filed a Writ Petition to nullify the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 13.06.1976 on 05.09.1990.

3. The writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that there was a long delay in seeking the relief. The settlor died on 28.01.2016 and the Writ Petition was filed after a lapse of 8 years from the date of the death of the settlor. This Court is of the considered view that all the legal heirs of late Angamuthu have chosen to file a Writ Petition seeking cancellation of the cancellation deed executed in favour of the 1^st appellant. Secondly the Writ Court has made a finding that there is a possibility of claiming adverse possession. If at all any third party interest has been already created, that is to be determined or adjudicated in the manner known to law.

4. As far as the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is concerned, unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is impermissible and the issues in this regard are no more res integra and settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India and Others vs. Hadeeja Ammal and Others , [12011 (2) CTC 1], and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“48. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act defined the word "Sale", which means transfer of ownership by one person to another. In other words, sale is transfer of all rights, title and interest in the properties which are possessed by the transferor to another person namely., the purchaser. In case of transfer by way of sale, the transferor cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property. Such transfer of ownership must be for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Even if the whole price is not paid, but the document is executed and registered, the sale would be complete. The transfer is complete and effective upon the completion of the registration of the sale deed. Once the vendor is divested himself of his ownership of the property, then he retains no control or right over the said property.

54. There is no provision in the Transfer of Property Act or in the Registration Act, which deals with the cancellation of deed of sale. The reason according to us is that the execution of a deed of cancellation by the vendor does not create, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the immovable property and the same has no effect in the eye of law. A provision relating to the cancellation of a document is provided in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Old Section 39). reads as under:

31. When cancellation may be ordered:

(1)Any person against whom a written instrument is void or void able, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left out standing, may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or void able, and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.

(2)If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.

55. From t