Dismissed¶24

Smt.N.Kasthuri v. D.Marimuthu (Died)

Madras HC4 Jul 2025AS/857/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unilateral cancellation of settlement/gift deed not revocable when acted upon; Sasikala Full Bench 2022 (5) CTC 257 followed; burden of proving undue influence/fraud on allegers; Section 68 Evidence Act; Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 CPC appeal; Section 23(1) Senior Citizens Act argument; settlement deed 12.04.1990; cancellation deed 16.07.2009 Document No.5169 of 2009; declaration of title and permanent injunction confirmed; Principal District and Sessions Court Tiruvallur O.S.No.29 of 2013; Madras High Court AS.No.857 of 2018; M. Jothiraman J.; 04.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

None to appellants; First Appeal dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2017 in O.S.No.29 of 2013 (declaration of title and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff) confirmed; no order as to costs. ¶24

Smt.N.Kasthuri Vs D.Marimuthu (Died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration? +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

On oral and documentary evidence the plaintiff proved that his father executed the settlement deed, mutated the revenue records and remains in enjoyment of the property, with property tax and electricity charges paid only by him (Ex.A3 to Ex.A9, Ex.A11 to Ex.A14, Ex.A22, Ex.A23, Ex.A26 to Ex.A31, Ex.A33), satisfying the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Following the ratio of the Full Bench in Sasikala (2022 (5) CTC 257), the unilateral cancellation of a gift/settlement deed is not revocable; a settlement deed that has been acted upon cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the settlor.

¶22

Key takeaways

The first defendant admitted execution of the settlement deed and challenged it only on the ground of his subsequent cancellation; having regard to the settlement deed dated 12.04.1990, he had no right to unilaterally cancel it on 16.07.2009 vide cancellation deed Document No.5169 of 2009.ratio¶23
Since the first defendant did not deny execution, the burden of proving that the deed was obtained by fraud, coercion or undue influence lay on the defendants; they examined no independent witness, the deceased executant never entered the witness box, and that burden was not discharged.ratio¶20
The issues raised in the appeal were rightly answered by the trial Court; there is no reason to interfere with its judgment and decree, and the plaintiff's claim to declaration stands confirmed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Jothiraman, J.), 04.07.2025 — First Appeal AS.No.857 of 2018 under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 CPC dismissed, confirming the Tiruvallur District Court decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction founded on settlement deed Ex.A1 dated 12.04.1990 (2,180 sq.ft.). The father-executant unilaterally cancelled the settlement on 16.07.2009 (Document No.5169 of 2009) and executed a fresh settlement the same day in favour of the plaintiff and daughters 2 and 3, but neither document was produced before this Court. Defendants alleged the deed was procured by fraud/undue influence under a loan pretext; the executant died without entering the witness box and no independent witness was examined, so their burden was not discharged. Following the Full Bench in Sasikala (2022 (5) CTC 257), a gift/settlement deed acted upon is not revocable by unilateral cancellation; the plaintiff proved acting-upon by construction, mutation and payment of property tax and electricity charges (Ex.A3-A9, A11-A14, A22, A23, A26-A31, A33). Section 68 Evidence Act requirements met. No costs.

¶1

AS.No.857 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

AS.No.857 of 2018

¶7

1.N.Kasthuri 2.E.Saroja ...Appellants/Defendants 2 and 3 Vs. D.Marimuthu (Died) ...Respondent/1^st Defendant M.Ramalingam ...Respondent/Plaintiff

¶8

Prayer : This First Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.29 of 2013 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur.

¶9

For Appellants : Mr.S.Gunaseelan

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.K.B.Vivekanandhan

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

The unsuccessful defendants 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal.

¶13

The suit is filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for.

¶14

1/16