Madras High Court
D. Jayavel vs Kalarani on 31 October, 2025
S.A.No.1071 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 19.08.2025
Pronounced on 31.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
S.A.No.1071 of 2021
1. D. Jayavel
2. P. Lakshmi Devi
3. J. Hemanth ...Appellants
Vs.
1. Kalarani
2. Dhanasekaraj
3. Murali
4. D. Rameswari
5. Mangalam ...Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the
judgment and decree dated 21.01.2021 passed in A.S. No.226 of 2019,
on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,
confirming the Judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019 passed in
O.S.No.4383 of 2007, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr. A. Muthukumar
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
S.A.No.1071 of 2021
For Respondents : Mr. A. Kumanaraja for R1, R2, R4 & R5
R3 - No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
decree dated 21.01.2021 passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai, in A.S. No.226/2019 confirming the judgment and
decree passed by the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in
O.S. No. 4383/2007 dated 27.04.2019.
2. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No.4383/2007 on the
file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The
respondents as plaintiffs filed the above suit for the following reliefs:
(a) For declaration to declare that the settlement deed executed in
favour of the defendants dated 26.05.2006 is null and void and
illegal and is not binding upon the plaintiffs.
(b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men,
agents, servants or any one acting on their behalf from in any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
manner alienating the suit schedule property and for cost.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial court.
4. The facts of the case run as follows:
4.1. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are the children of late
Mr.Dasarathan and late Mrs. Kothainayaki. The said Dasarathan worked
as a sub-postmaster and Kothainayaki worked in the Panchayat Union
office. The suit property was purchased by Dasarathan by way of a
registered sale deed dated 22.05.1959. Later, the said Dasarathan settled
the said property in favour of his wife Kothainayaki by way of a
registered settlement deed dated 11.03.1985. Kothainayaki died intestate
on 16.07.1994 and the plaintiffs lived in the suit property along with the
1st defendant and their father till 2005. Thereafter they shifted their
residence to the address mentioned in the plaint. The 1st defendant failed
to inform the death of Dasarathan who died on 07.01.2007 and after the
11th day ceremony when talks of partition were mooted out, the plaintiffs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
were shocked to hear from the 1st defendant that the suit property was
settled by their father in favour of the defendants by way of a registered
settlement deed dated 26.05.2006 after cancelling the settlement deed
dated 11.03.1985. Actually no such settlement deed was executed by
Dasarathan to whom the defendants never showed any affection and even
the death of Dasarathan has created lot of suspicion among the plaintiffs.
The 1st defendant availed his job on compassionate ground after the
death of his mother Kothainayaki for which the plaintiffs gave consent
magnanimously. While so, the 1st defendant has created the forged
settlement deed dated 26.05.2006 which came to the knowledge of the
plaintiffs only after the death of their father. The plaintiffs also reserve
their right to file a separate suit for partition later on. The defendants are
attempting to sell the suit property to third parties. Hence the suit.
4.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants by stating that the suit
property was initially settled by Dasarathan in favour of his wife on
11.03.1985, who died on 16.07.1994. The plaintiffs 1 and 4 along with
their family lived with the defendants in the suit property only till the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
year 2000. The settlement deed executed in favour of Kothainayaki was
not at all acted upon. The suit property was owned and possessed only by
late Dasarathan and he had every right to execute the settlement deed in
favour of the defendants. No talks of partition took place after the 11th
day death ceremony. Later Dasarathan cancelled the settlement deed
dated 11.03.1985 by virtue of cancellation deed dated 10.10.1994 and
was enjoying the suit property by paying tax, letting out to tenants and by
residing in the suit property. In any event, the suit property was reverted
to Dasarathan after the death of Kothainayaki and he is very competent to
execute the settlement deed dated 26.05.2006. The 3rd plaintiff left the
suit property after his marriage. He did not have cordial relationship with
his parents and he issued a legal notice to Dasarathan after the death of
his mother Kothainayaki and secured 1/7 share of death benefits of his
mother. The plaintiffs are not entitled to equal share in the suit property
and as such Dasarathan performed the marriage of all the plaintiffs
during his life time in manner fit to the status of the family. Dasarathan
was cordial to his wife and the plaintiffs did not show any affection
towards him. The defendants 2 and 3 were purposely omitted and their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
belated impleadment is barred by limitation. There is no prayer with
regard to the cancellation deed dated 10.10.1994 and as such the suit is
not maintainable. The suit has not been properly valued. Hence, prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
5. After full contest, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial court, the
unsuccessful defendants have preferred the appeal suit in
A.S.No.226/2019 and the same was also dismissed by the first appellate
court. Challenging the same, the present second appeal is preferred by
the defendants.
6. The second appeal has been admitted on the following
substantial question of law:
"When there is no pleading with regard to cancellation of
the settlement deed dated 11.03.1985 in favour of
Kothainayaki by Dasarathan and when there is no prayer
with regard to setting aside the Cancellation Deed dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
10.10.1994, whether the decree granted by both the court
below in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs can be
sustained?"
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants/defendants is that, even though the said Dasarathan, executed
a settlement deed in favour of his wife Kothainayaki, the settlement deed
was never acted upon. Further, he would submit that the mortgage was
not discharged by Kothainayaki, which was the condition imposed in the
settlement deed. The said Dasarathan continued to pay the dues to the
revenue authorities even after the execution of settlement deed till his life
time and was also collecting rents from tenants till his death. Hence, he
would submit that, the settlement deed in favour of Kothainayaki was not
acted upon and that, he would, if there was no acceptance of the gift,
therefore the cancellation of the gift deed is valid. The property,
therefore, continued to belong to Dasarathan and after his death it was
devolved upon the defendants and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled
to the suit property. The learned counsel further submits that the civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
court alone is competent to cancel a document after its registration and
therefore, without a prayer for setting aside the cancellation deed, the suit
is not maintainable. To support his contention he relied on the judgment
in the case of Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2,
4 and 5/plaintiffs would contend that the recitals of the settlement deed
would reveal that it is an irrevocable settlement deed. In fact, possession
was handed over to Kothainayaki on the same day and the fact that the
superstructure in the suit property was raised by Kothainayaki was also
mentioned in the settlement deed. The said Kothainayaki continued to
reside in the suit property till her death. Since there was no difference of
opinion between Dasarathan and Kothainayaki, the revenue records
continued to stand in the name of Dasarathan. He never revoked the
settlement deed till the death of Kothainayaki. The unilateral cancellation
of the settlement deed is not valid in the eye of law. A settlement deed
cannot be cancelled unless either one of the elements of fraud,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion is present. Such
revocation is also possible only through a Civil Court. He would further
contend that, the registration of cancellation of the settlement deed is
against the public policy as it was not open to the Sub Registrar to
register the cancellation deed, when the settlement deed is unconditional
and irrevocable. If at all the party who has executed the document is
aggrieved by the settlement deed, he ought to have approached the Civil
Court to set it aside, but certainly could not unilaterally cancel it, by
getting the deed of cancellation registered with the Sub Registrar. Further
he would contend that the cancellation of the settlement deed is against
the public policy and the same by itself is null and void and therefore, the
plaintiffs need not pray for cancellation of the settlement deed. The
courts below rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs which
calls for any interference.
9. Despite notice, the 3rd respondent remained absent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents
1, 2, 4 and 5. Records perused.
11. It is not in dispute that the settlement deed was executed by
Dasarathan in favour of his wife Kothainayaki under Ex.A2 in respect of
the suit property. It is also not in dispute that the said settlement deed
was cancelled by Dasarathan, after her demise under a cancellation deed
marked as Ex.A3 dated 10.10.1994. On perusal of records it is seen that
the settlee had erected the superstructure out of her own savings on the
vacant site and she was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit
property. In the caption of the document the settlor has mentioned
'absolute irrevocable settlement'. From the recital of the documents it is
also seen that the settlement deed is an irrevocable deed and came into
operation immediately after the execution of the deed and that the
discharge of mortgage is not a precondition imposed by the settlor to the
settlee. Hence, the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is not
valid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
12. The only question raised in this Second Appeal is that whether
the decree granted in favour of the plaintiffs can be sustained without
prayer for setting aside the cancellation deed dated 10.10.1994.
13. An unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is generally
considered legally ineffective and cannot be used to revoke a registered
transfer of property without the consent of the other party. The only
recourse for a party who wishes to cancel such a deed is to file a civil suit
seeking a declaration from a competent court to cancel the original
settlement deed. Thus, a unilateral cancellation deed is an invalid
document that does not affect the rights already vested in the property
through the original settlement deed. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, the registration of
cancellation of settlement deed is against the public policy and it is not
open to the Sub Registrar to register the cancellation of deed when the
settlement deed is unconditional and irrevocable. Since the document
itself is invalid, prayer for setting aside the alleged cancellation deed is
not required. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
against the appellants/defendants.
14.In view of the above findings, I do not find any error of law
committed by the learned courts below in giving a decision regarding the
decreeing of the plaintiffs' suit.
15. In the result,
i. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 21.01.2021 passed in A.S. No.226
of 2019, on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019
passed in O.S.No.4383 of 2007, on the file of the VIII Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. is upheld.
31.10.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
To
1. The VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
2. The VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J
bga
Pre delivery Judgment in
31.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:12:59 pm )
