O R D E R

Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed executed by the rd

3 respondent, who is none other than the father of the writ petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.

rd

2. The 3 respondent executed a settlement deed in favour of the writ rd petitioner on 14.07.2022. The learned counsel for the 3 respondent made a submission that the settlement deed was executed in favour of the writ rd petitioner by coercion and fraud and therefore, the 3 respondent had subsequently executed a cancellation document on 02.05.2023 and had further executed settlement deed in favour of other two sons. Therefore, the facts apparently reveals that the settlement deed executed by the rd

3 respondent in favour of the writ petitioner in the year 2022 was cancelled unilaterally on 02.05.2023. Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is impermissible.

3. Issues regarding the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is no res integra and the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Estate Line India Ltd. -vs- Hadeeja Amma reported in [(2011) 2 CTC 1]

held as follows:-

“ 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).

Section 31 reads as under:

“31. When cancellation may be ordered.—

(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable, 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 the reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that three conditions are requisite for the exercise of jurisdiction to cancel an instrument i.e., (1) An instrument is avoidable against the Plaintiff;

(2) The Plaintiff may reasonably apprehend serious injury by the instrument being left or outstanding; and (3) In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers it proper to grant this relief of preventive justice.

56. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Muppudathi Pillai v. Krishnaswami Pillai, 1959 (2) MLJ 225 : AIR 1960 Madras 1, elaborately discussed the provision of Section 39 (New Section 31) and held:

“12. The principle is that such document though not necessary to be set aside may, if left outstanding, be a source of potential mischief. The jurisdiction under Section 39 is, therefore, a pro