Dismissed

B. Perumal v. Minor. C.V. Tharane

Madras HC4 Sept 2024WA/172/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal challenged the Single Judge's order allowing a writ petition that quashed the unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed executed in favour of minor grandchildren. The Full Bench relied on prior judgments to hold such unilateral cancellation void. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, allowing the impugned order quashing the cancellation deed to stand. Connected miscellaneous petition closed with no costs.

B. Perumal Vs Minor. C.V. Tharane — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.No.172 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶7

W.A.No.172 of 2024

¶8

and

¶9

C.M.P.No.1016 of 2024

¶10

1.B.Perumal 2.P.Vijaya Krishnan

... Appellants

Vs.

1.Minor C.V.Tharane

2.Minor C.V.Naveen Srinivasan

¶15

Both represented by their father and natural guardian P.Venkataraman

¶16

3.The Sub Registrar, Villivakkam Village, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, Presently Aminjikarai Taluk, Chennai.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.A.No.172 of 2024

¶21

Prayer:-

¶22

Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.09.2023 in W.P.No.22773 of 2023 on the file of this Court.

¶23

For Appellants	:	Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Praveennath
For R1 and R2	:	M/s.K.R.Gayathri
For R3	:	Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )

¶26

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 13.09.2023, in W.P.No.22773 of 2023 filed for quashing the cancellation of settlement deed registered as Doc.No.947 of 2015 dated 13.02.2015.

¶27

2.Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are

¶28

as follows :

¶29

The appellants are respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition filed by

¶30

Page 2 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.A.No.172 of 2024

¶33

respondents 1 and 2 herein. The respondents 1 and 2 are represented by their father and natural guardian. It is not in dispute that the 1^st appellant was the absolute owner of the property situated at Plot No.336, New No.10, 19^th Street, 'C' Sector, Arignar Anna Nagar Western Extension Scheme, 'W' Block, comprised in R.S.Nos.156/2A Part and 157 Part, Villivakkam Village, Chennai. The 1^st appellant admits that he executed a settlement deed, dated 15.12.2014, registered as Doc.No.6157 of 2014, in favour of his two minor grandchildren, who are the writ petitioners in respect of one portion of the property. The remaining half portion of the property was settled in the name of his elder son by way of another settlement deed, dated 15.12.2014, registered as Doc.No.6156 of 2014. It is admitted that the 1^st appellant later unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed which was executed in favour of his minor grandchildren, vide cancellation deed dated 13.02.2015 registered as Doc.No.947 of 2015, only on the ground that his second son did not take care of him. When the respondents 1 and 2 came to know about the cancellation of settlement deed, they filed the writ petition in W.P.No.22773 of 2023 and the same was allowed by this Court by relying upon the judgments of the Full Bench of this Court in M/s.Latif Estate Line

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.A.No.172 of 2024

¶37

India Ltd. v. Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 , as well as the judgments in Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector, Devakottai and others reported in (2022) 7 MLJ 1 , holding that unilateral cancellation of a sale deed or settlement deed is void and such cancellation can be challenged before this Court in a writ petition.

¶38

3.In this case, on going through the settlement deed, it is seen that the settlement deed executed by the 1^st appellant in favour of his grandchildren is not a conditional gift, but purely out of love and affection without any expectations. The 1^st appellant admits the execution of settlement deeds and acceptance. Even according to the 1^st appellant in this case, it is only due to the conduct of his second son, the father of minor children, he wished to cancel the settlement deed. On the admitted facts, the judgments of Full Bench of this Court in the two cases above referred to are squarely applicable to the case on hand and the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is void and therefore, this Court is unable to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.A.No.172 of 2024

¶42

4.The above Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶43

5.Since it is admitted that, pursuant to the cancellation of settlement deed in favour of writ petitioners, the 1^st appellant has executed another settlement deed, it goes without saying that the subsequent transaction or document is also void and therefore, it is not necessary for the respondents 1 and 2 /writ petitioners to again seek a declaration before the Civil Court as to the validity of such document. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

(S.S.S.R., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 04.09.2024

¶45

mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶46

¶47

The Sub Registrar, Villivakkam Village, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, Presently Aminjikarai Taluk, Chennai.

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

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

¶50