Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3389/A1/2022 dated 08.12.2022 by confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A5/18/2022 dated 22.09.2022 quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan

for M/s.V.Elangovan

For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran for R1 to R3

Government Counsel

Mr.N.R.Anantha Ramakrishnan for R4

Mr.V.Suriya Sankar for R5

O R D E R

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3389/A1/2022 dated 08.12.2022 by confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A5/18/2022 dated 22.09.2022 quash the same.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sister of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is a bachelor and he executed settlement deed in Doc.No.5007/2020 on the file of Sub Registrar, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai on 25.09.2020 in favour of the petitioner and in favour of another sister namely Kamrunnisa and thereafter at the instigation of the fifth respondent who is the son of the said Kamrunnisa filed complaint before the second respondent and the second respondent cancelled the settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent and challenging the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent confirmed the order passed by the second respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 4343 [Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another] has held that a sale deed or a deed of conveyance other than testamentary dispositions which is executed and registered cannot be unilaterally cancelled and that as regards gift or settlement deed, a deed of revocation or cancellation is permissible only in a case which fall under Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable one. The learned counsel further submitted that the fourth respondent retired from Southern Railways and is receiving pension, however, the petitioner is ready to pay maintenance to the fourth respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that settlement deed was executed in favour of two sisters and further submitted that one sister came forward to cancel the settlement deed, however, the petitioner denied for the same. Hence, this Court may, in the event of setting aside the impugned order, grant liberty to the fourth respondent to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate remedy.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is useful to extract hereunder the relevant portion of the decision of Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 4343 [Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another]:

“58. From the discussions and conclusions we have reached above with reference to various provisions of Statutes and precedents, we reiterate the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 207 and the Full Bench of this Court in Latif Estate Line India Ltd., case, reported in AIR 2011 Mad 66 and inclined to follow the judgment of three member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veena Singh's case reported in (2022) 7 SCC 1 and the judgment of two member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Case, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 544 for the following propositions:

(a) A sale deed or a deed of conveyance other than testamentary dispositions which is executed and registered cannot be unilaterally cancelled.

(b) Such unilateral cancellation of sale deed or a