A registered settlement deed that creates vested rights cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the settlor unless specific conditions for revocation were reserved in the deed; any challenge to its validity must be pursued through a competent Civil Court.

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2025 made in A.S.No.25 of 2023 on the file of learned Principal Sub Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2017 made in O.S.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

JUDGMENT

The above second appeal arise out of the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2025 made in A.S.No.25 of 2023 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2023 made in O.S.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

2. The defendants 1 to 4 have preferred the present second appeal. The 1st respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration

i.to rectify the survey No.352/28 in the settlement deed dated 06.03.2009 as survey No.352/48 and town survey No.178.

ii. To direct the 1st defendant to rectify the said defect and in the event if the same is refused by the 1st defendant, the 5th defendant Sub Registrar, Namakkal District shall be directed to rectify the said defect.

iii.To declare the cancellation deed dated 12.04.2011 executed by the 1st defendant as null and void. To declare the settlement deed dated 13.11.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the defendants 2 & 3 as null and void.

iv.To declare the mortgage deed executed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in favour of the 4th defendant dated 18.11.2016 as null and void and for other reliefs.

3.The trial Court decreed the above suit in favour of the plaintiff and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred by the defendants 1 to 4.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the suit property is self acquired property of the 1st appellant/1st defendant. The plaintiff is the grandson of the 1st defendant. According to the 1st defendant her son Murugesan, father of the plaintiff forced her to provide financial assistance to develop his lorry body works and for that purpose he forced her to offer the suit property as collateral security for borrowing loan from the bank. She had no intention to transfer the property in favour of the plaintiff. On 06.03.2009 she executed the alleged settlement deed without being aware of its contents and recitals. Later point of time, she came to know that her son had transfered the suit property in the name of the plaintiff through a registered settlement deed. They also prevented her from giving shares to her daughters. After knowing the deceitful act of her son, she cancelled the settlement deed dated 06.03.2009 by executing a cancellation deed on 12.04.2011 and thereafter, settled the suit property in favour of her daughters on 30.11.2015, who are the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the suit. The Courts below without appreciating the evidence on record properly, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff which warrants interference by this Court.

5.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff would submit that, the 1st defendant unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the plaintiff which is legally unsustainable. To support his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4312 of 2025. He would further submit that after executing a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant do not have any