Safiya Malik

The Madras High Court, Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, set aside the unilateral cancellation of a registered settlement deed, deeming the action illegal, null, and void. The court directed the Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore North Joint I, to remove entries regarding the impugned cancellation from official registers.

The writ petition challenged the cancellation of a settlement deed registered as Document No. 8210 of 2024, dated 25.11.2024. The court cited in favor of the petitioner, holding that the deed had created a vested interest, and could not be cancelled unilaterally.

Also Read: Public Jobs Remain Elusive Even After 80 Years of Independence: Employment Must Be Based on Merit And Merit Alone, Upholds invalidation of Bihar’s Hereditary Chaukidar Rule: Supreme Court

The petitioner, R. Shridar, approached the High Court seeking quashing of a cancellation deed executed by his elder sister, who had previously settled property in his favor via Document No. 8608 of 2023, dated 24.11.2023. The property in question, measuring 10,347 square feet, was located at Ward A, Anupparpalayam in several T.S. Numbers within Coimbatore District.

According to the petitioner, the original title deeds were handed over to him, thereby demonstrating that the settlement deed was acted upon. He claimed that the subsequent unilateral cancellation through Document No. 8210 of 2024 by the settlor, and a fresh settlement deed in favor of her son, the second respondent Kiran Kumar (Document No. 8211 of 2024), was void and without legal effect.

Initially, the court had allowed the writ petition on 12.3.2025 based on the Full Bench judgment in Sasikala & Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Others [2022 (7) MLJ 1]. However, the order was recalled on 19.3.2025 upon submission by the second respondent that he had not been afforded a hearing.

In his counter affidavit, the second respondent contended:

1. The petitioner, his maternal uncle, obtained the deed under the guise of caregiving, which he allegedly failed to provide.

2. Based on rights reserved in the settlement deed, the settlor revoked it and executed a fresh deed in his favor on the same day.

3. He claimed possession and rental income of the property and submitted that revenue records now bore his name.

4. The deed in question, while labelled as a settlement, was in essence a Will and therefore revocable.

The petitioner's counsel argued that no right of cancellation had been reserved by the settlor. It was further submitted that the only postponement pertained to enjoyment of the property, not title. The settlor passed away the day after executing the cancellation deed, raising doubts about her state of mind.

The court first addressed the nature of the document dated 24.11.2023, stating: "A careful reading of the above recitals would show that the settlor had reserved her right to enjoy the income arising out of the subject property till her lifetime and she also retained her right to occupy the subject property during her lifetime. It was further made clear that after her lifetime, the petitioner will have the absolute right over the subject property."

Rejecting the argument that the deed was a Will, the court observed: "By no stretch, the settlement deed dated 24.11.2023 can be construed as a Will as was contended on the side of the second respondent."

On the question of vested vs contingent interest, the court cited its earlier judgement in Mrs. Sunitha Gridharidas & Others v. Sub-Registrar, Purasaiwalkam [W.P.No.10657 of 2015 dated 02.9.2022], stating:

"A person gets a vested interest in a property when he acquires a proprietary right in it and the right of enjoyment alone is deferred to a future date, till the lifetime of the settlor."

The court also cited Usha Subbarao v. B.N. Vishveswaraiah [(1996) 5 SCC 201] and elaborated:

"An interest is said to be a vested interest when there is immediate right of present enjoyment or a present right for future enjoyment. An interest is said to be contingent if the right of enjoyment is made dependent upon some event or condition which may or may not happen."

The court then turned to the Full Bench decision in Sasikala, which held:

"A gift deed which is not revocable and does not come under the purview of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the donor."

The decision further stated:

"If the donor by himself reserves a right to revoke the gift at his will without the assent by donee, the gift itself is void. Since we are dealing with unilateral cancellation, the power of registration of cancellation or revocation of gift deed cannot be left to the discretion or wisdom of registering authority."

In applying this principle, the court stated:

"The gift settlement deed dated 24.11.2023 can be cancelled only if it comes within the purview of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act."

The bench also relied on the recent Supreme Court judgement in N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma [Civil Appeal No. 4312 of 2025 dated 24.3.2025]. It recorded:

"Once the gift has been acted upon, the same cannot be unilaterally cancelled. The donor retaining a life interest with rights to enjoy the income from the property does not create a right to cancel the document unilaterally."

Addressing the argument that the deed was not acted upon, the court observed:

"The fact that the original title deeds to the subject property and the original settlement deed dated 24.11.2023 were handed over to the petitioner would be sufficient enough to conclude that the settlement deed has been acted upon."

It added:

"The petitioner could not have done anything more during the lifetime of the settlor since she had retained the right to collect the income from the subject property and also enjoyed the same."

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Orders Judicial Inquiry into Police Lathi Charge on Panchamasali Protestors at Suvarna Soudha, Directs Commission to Be Headed by Retired High Court Judge

The court held that:

"The unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed dated 24.11.2023 through the cancellation deed dated 25.11.2024, which was entertained and registered by the first respondent in doc.No.8210 of 2024 is held to be illegal and null and void."

It further declared:

"The settlement deed dated 25.11.2024 registered as doc.No.8211 of 2024 executed in favour of the second respondent is also non-est in the eye of law since the settlor did not have the right to cancel the settlement deed dated 24.11.2023."

Consequently, the Sub-Registrar was directed to remove the entries in respect of the cancellation deed from the relevant registers.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioner: Mr. S. Venugopalraj
For First Respondents: Mr. U. Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader, Mr. S. R. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel

Case Title: R. Shridar v. The Sub-Registrar and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:925
Case Number: WP No.8075 of 2025
Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

[Read/Download order]