Allowed

H.Haroon Rasheed v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC27 Mar 2023WP/8505/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioner challenged a unilateral revocation of a 2009 Settlement Deed made by his mother in his favor. Relying on the Full Bench judgment in Sasikala, the court held unilateral revocation is void and correctly permitted the mother to approach authorities under the Maintenance Act if genuine coercion existed. It quashed the revocation deed on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Inserted as per Judgment

H.Haroon Rasheed Vs the Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.8505 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.8505 of 2013

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶9

H.Haroon Rasheed ...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Sub Registrar, Tirupur Joint 2, Tirupur Registration District, Tirupur.

¶12

2.Mrs.Havama 3.H.Asaraf Ali ..Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the revocation deed registered by 1 st respondent in Document No.492 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012 as illegal, void, against the Provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Selvakumar

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/7

¶17

W.P.No.8505 of 2013

¶18

For R1 : Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.K.Sudhakar For R3 : Not Ready in Notice

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Writ of Declaration is filed to declare the revocation deed registered by 1 st respondent in Document No.492 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012 is void and in violation of the Provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act.

¶21

2. The writ petitioner is the son of the 2^nd respondent and the 3^rd respondent is the brother of the writ petitioner. The 2^nd respondent is the original owner of the property bearing at New Door No.13/1, 13, 15/4, 5, (Old No.5), 2^nd street, Kumarasamy Lay out, comprised in T.S.No.1187, Block No.17, Ward No.6, measuring to an extent of 1485 Sq.Ft.

¶22

The said property was settled by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the writ petitioner and his brother/3^rd respondent through Settlement Deed dated 28.05.2009 bearing Document No.2226 of 2009 on the file of the 1^st respondent / Sub-Registrar. The 2^nd respondent had handed over the

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/7

¶25

W.P.No.8505 of 2013

¶26

possession of the property to the writ petitioner. However, at the instigation of her brother and son-in-law, the 2^nd respondent had unilaterally revoked the Settlement Deed through Revocation Deed dated 08.02.2012 vide Document No.492 of 2012.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the unilateral

¶28

revocation is bad in law and thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

¶29

The issues regarding cancellation of Settlement Deed unilaterally is

¶30

no more res integra . The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sasikala & others Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District & others , reported in CDJ 2022 MHC 5653 , ruled that the unilateral revocation of Settlement Deed is bad in law.

¶31

The Full Bench further considered the issue that in the event of non-maintenance of senior citizen/parents of the Settlor, then the Settlor or any other person is at liberty to approach the competent authorities under

¶32

3/7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.8505 of 2013

¶35

the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for the purpose of revocation of Settlement Deed executed.

¶36

Thus, in the event of coercion, fraud or otherwise, the Settlor has got opportunity to revoke the Settlement Deed under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However, unilateral revocation is impermissible and in violation of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

¶37

In the present case, the writ petitioner has categorically stated that he has been maintaining his mother and now his mother is residing along with him. Further, the petitioner undertakes that he will not disturb the 2^nd respondent / mother and demand any money from her. The said undertaking is filed by way of an affidavit before this Court, which reads as under:

¶38

“4. I submit that, from the beginning I am maintaining my mother and till date she is with me. Further after the death of my father in the year 2004, my mother is drawing pension for her till date. It is pertinent to note that my father was a foreman in the Electricity Board, who lastly worked at Tirupur. Now my mother is drawing

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

4/7

¶41

W.P.No.8505 of 2013

¶42

pension of a sum of Rs.23,000/- and above per month.

¶43

5. I submit that, the house in the settlement deed dated 28.05.2009 is consisting of two portions and in which I had rented the house and my mother is collecting the rent of Rs.6500/- per month for herself till date without any interruption. I undertake that, I will not interfere in the collection of the rent or letting out any tenant by mother till her life time. In the second portion I am residing with my mother, wife and 3 daughters. I am doing tailoring job at Easa Garment, Venkiteshwara Nagar, Tirupur and my monthly salary is about Rs.18,000/- only.

¶44

6. I submit that, I am looking after my mother without getting any amount from her. I am also giving moral support for her by exclusively allotting one room for her in the double bed room house.”

¶45

If at all the 2^nd respondent / mother is of an opinion that the Settlement Deed executed by her is by coercion, fraud or undue influence, she is at liberty to approach the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for revocation of Settlement Deed in the manner known to law.

¶46

With this liberty, the Revocation Deed registered in Document

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

5/7

¶49

W.P.No.8505 of 2013

¶50

No.492 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012 o n the file of the 1^st respondent is declared as void and the 1^st respondent / Sub-Registrar, Tirupur, is directed to make necessary entries in the Registers.

¶51