Lakshmi Ammal v. Arunraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on 14.10.2025 Pronounced on 09.01.2026 Coram:

The Honourable Mrs.Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI Second Appeal No.456 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.15016 of 2025 1.Lakshmi Ammal 2.Azhagammal 3.Muthulakshmi 4.Karthick ..

Appellants versus 1.Arunraj 2.The Joint Registrar -1, Sub Registrar, Joint Registrar-1 , Sub Registrar Office, Rear side of District Police Office, Thiruchengodu road, Namakkal Town, Taluk and District.

..

Respondents 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 21.03.2023 made in O.S.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the 1/10

learned Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal. For Appellants : Mr.M.Sridhar For Respondents : Mr.B.Thirumalai for R1 Mr.V.Ramesh, Government Advocate for R2

JUDGMENT

The above second appeal arise out of the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2025 made in A.S.No.25of 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 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. defendant to rectify the said defect and in the event ii. To direct the 1 2/10

defendant, the 5 th defendant Sub Registrar, if the same is refused by the 1 Namakkal District shall be directed to rectify the said defect. iii.To declare the cancellation deed dated 12.04.2011 executed by the defendant as null and void. To declare the settlement deed dated defendant in favour of the defendants 2 & 3 13.11.2015 executed by the 1 as null and void.

nd and 3 rd defendants iv.To declare the mortgage deed executed by the 2 th defendant dated 18.11.2016 as null and void and for other in favour of the 4 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 appellant/1 defendant.

the suit property is self acquired property of the 1 3/10

defendant. According to the 1 The plaintiff is the grandson of the 1 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 nd and 3 rd defendants in the suit. The daughters on 30.11.2015, who are the 2 Courts below without appreciating the evidence on record properly, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff which warrants interference by this Court. 5.

defendant unilaterally respondent/plaintiff would submit that, the 1 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 defendant do not have any right over the suit property the plaintiff, the 1 and execute the settlement deed dated 30.11.2015 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff which warrants any interference by this Court. 6.Heard on both sides, records perused.

defendant executed the settlement 7.It is not in dispute that the 1 deed dated 06.03.2009 marked as Ex.A.4 before the trial Court. It is also not defendant on 5/10 in dispute that the said settlement deed was cancelled by the 1

defendant had executed a 12.04.2011 under Ex.A5. Thereafter, the 1 nd and 3 rd settlement deed on 30.11.2015 under Ex.A5 in favour of the 2 defendants. Now, it has to be seen whether such unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is valid.

8.A unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is not valid, especially if the deed is registered and creates vested rights, as it requires mutual consent or specific conditions in the deed for revocation. Once a settlement deed is executed and registered, rights vest in the beneficiary (settlee) making them irrevocable without the beneficiary's consent. Unilateral cancellation is permissible only if the original settlement deed included specific conditions and the settlee failed to fulfil them, as stated in the deed. However, the settlement deed can be challenged in a Civil Court on grounds like fraud, co-ersion, undue influence or misrepresentation, which, if proven, can lead to the deed being declared void. Otherwise, a settlement deed, once registered irrevocably transfers property, unless a right to revoke is reserved in the deed itself. A separate cancellation deed 6/10

registered by the settlor alone is legally ineffective and void. To undo a settlement deed, a suit has to be filed in a competent Civil Court to have it set aside or declare void. The onus is usually on the party alleging fraud or co-ersion to prove it, but in fiduciary relationships like parent and child, the burden might shift to the dominant party to prove the absence of such influence.

9.Admittedly, there is no specific conditions in the settlement deed dated 06.03.2009 which the settlee failed to meet. Only in such case, the defendant might cancel it. Moreover, the husband of the 1 settlor 1 defendant has stood as witness to the said document. Neither in the cancellation deed nor in the settlement deed executed in favour of the defendant had whispered about the alleged fraud defendants 2 & 3, the 1 committed by the plaintiff and his father. Moreover, even in the settlement deed dated 06.03.2009 executed in favour of the plaintiff, it is mentioned defendant and her husband shall live along with the plaintiff till that the 1 7/10

their life time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the settlement deed is not acted upon. Moreover, it is settled law that delivery of possession is not sine qua non to validate a settlement deed. Therefore, for the document to be valid, it is sufficient if it is proved that the same was acted upon during the lifetime of the executant. The factum of acceptance can be derived from the conduct of the parties. Moreover, the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit was in possession of the original title deed. The receipt of the original document by the plaintiff and registration of the settlement deed, would amount to acceptance and the transaction satisfies the requirement of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

It is to be noted that once a settlement deed has been acted upon, the same cannot be unilaterally cancelled and in the absence of any clause or reservation to cancel, the executant has no right to cancel the same. Moreover, the reasons for cancellation has to be proved in a Court of law, which is not done in the present case. Therefore, the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed defendant is void and consequently, the dated 06.03.

defendant in favour of settlement deed dated 30.11.2015 executed by the 1 the defendants 2 & 3 in respect of the suit property is invalid. No perversity or infirmity found in the judgments passed by the Courts below which calls for any interference by this Court.

10.In the result, (i)this second appeal stands dismissed. No costs. (ii) 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 21.03.2023 made in O.S.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal, is upheld. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.01.2026 vsn Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non-speaking order To 1.The Principal Sub Court, Namakkal

2. The Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal. 3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. 9/10

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.

vsn Pre- delivery judgment made in Second Appeal No.456 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.15016 of 2025 09.01.2026 10/10