so placed reliance of the Judgment this Court in M/s.Latif Estate Line India Ltd v. Hadeeja Ammal reported in AIR

W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.03.2024Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.2736 of 20241. M. Kalaivani2. M.Ranjitha… PetitionersVs.1. The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Chennai - 600 0282. The District Registrar Office of the District Registrar Salem West Registration District, Salem3. The Sub Registrar Salem West Joint-1 Sub Registrar Office Salem4. Dr.M.Kasthuri ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 cancel the Deed of Cancellation of the Settlement Deed dated 21.08.2013, executed by the 4th respondent herein, registered as Document No.3208 of 2013, on the file of the 2nd respondent herein as null and void.For Petitioner: Mr.M.GaneshFor R1 to R3: Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government PleaderFor R4: Mr.Shangar Murali ORDERThis Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to cancel the Deed of Cancellation of the Settlement Deed dated 21.08.2013, executed by the 4th respondent herein, registered as Document No.3208 of 2013, on the file of the 2nd respondent herein as null and void. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit property originally belongs to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent had executed a settlement deed in favour of the husband of the 1st petitioner/ father of the 2nd petitioner who is none other than the brother of the 4th respondent. Even prior to the date of settlement, the property was handed 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 over to the settlee and the same was also recited in the settlement deed itself. Further, the settlor has no power and authority to cancel the settlement deed. It is settled law that the unilateral cancellation of settlement is not valid. Therefore, the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed by the 4th respondent dated 21.08.2013 is not valid. He also placed reliance of the Judgment this Court in M/s.Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal reported in AIR 2011 MADRAS 66, and W.P.(MD) No.28161 of 2022 (Pechiammal Vs. The Sub Registrar, Melur, Tuticorin) dated 30.01.2023.3. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the so called settlement deed said to have executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the settlee who is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner was never acted upon. The settlement deed itself is sham and nominal. Even the recitals of the settlement deed itself is nto correct. Further, the land was with the 4th respondent only and the Patta also stands 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 in the name of the 4th respondent. Even after the settlement, the possession was denied that the 4th respondent constructed a building and also gave financial help to the 2nd petitioner. Therefore, she is in possession of the property. Though the settlee of the property mentioned in the settlement deed only the vacant land, whereas, at present the 4th respondent has constructed a building and all the revenue records, Tax receipts stand in the name of the 4th respondent. Since the 4th respondent is in possession and since the settlement deed itself is not acted upon which is sham and nominal, the citations referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.4. It is seen that the 4th respondent is said to have executed the settlement deed in favour of the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner on 28.01.2011. Subsequently, the 4th respondent is said to have cancelled the said settlement deed on 21.08.2013. According to the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 petitioner, unilateral cancellation is not valid. According to the private respondent, settlement itself was not acted upon and the same is sham and nominal.5. Though the recitals of the settlement deed it is mentioned as already possession was handed over to the settlee and the settlee was in possession and after the death of the settlee, the writ petitioners were in possession of the property, he has not produced any document. Further in the settlement deed itself it is mentioned as vacant site, whereas, the 4th respondent submits that the recitals seen in the settlement deed are false and it is only sham and nominal document and never acted upon and the possession is with the settler and no delivery of possession was effected. One of the main contention of the 4th respondent is that valid settlement deed is delivery of possession. 6. Therefore, it is for the settlee to establish the delivery of possession and acceptance of possession. Though the petitioners have not 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 produced any records except the copy of the settlement deed, cancellation of the settlement deed and Death Certificate and legal heir certificate of the settlee, there is no other document to show that the settlement deed was acted upon and the delivery of possession was effected and the settlee accepted the settlement deed and took possession. 7. Further, the 4th respondent vehemently disputes the validity of the settlement deed and delivery of possession and now all the revenue records stand in the name of the 4th respondent and she has constructed a house. 8. It is settled proposition of law that unilateral cancellation is not valid in law. However, whether the settlement deed was acted upon, whether the delivery of possession was effected, whether the settlee accepted the possession and whether the settlement deed came to be effected, are all matters of evidence. The Writ Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry on those aspects.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 9. Under these circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. The parties are at liberty to work out their remedy before the Civil Court to establish the genuineness of the document, possession, right and title. 07.03.2024Index : Yes / No Speaking Order: Yes / NoNeutral Citation Case : Yes/NoKsa-27/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 To1. The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Chennai - 600 0282. The District Registrar Office of the District Registrar Salem West Registration District Salem3. The Sub Registrar Salem West Joint-1 Sub Registrar Office Salem8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 P.VELMURUGAN. J.Ksa-2W.P. No.2502 of 202407.03.20249/9

W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.03.2024Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.2736 of 20241. M. Kalaivani2. M.Ranjitha… PetitionersVs.1. The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Chennai - 600 0282. The District Registrar Office of the District Registrar Salem West Registration District, Salem3. The Sub Registrar Salem West Joint-1 Sub Registrar Office Salem4. Dr.M.Kasthuri ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 cancel the Deed of Cancellation of the Settlement Deed dated 21.08.2013, executed by the 4th respondent herein, registered as Document No.3208 of 2013, on the file of the 2nd respondent herein as null and void.For Petitioner: Mr.M.GaneshFor R1 to R3: Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government PleaderFor R4: Mr.Shangar Murali ORDERThis Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to cancel the Deed of Cancellation of the Settlement Deed dated 21.08.2013, executed by the 4th respondent herein, registered as Document No.3208 of 2013, on the file of the 2nd respondent herein as null and void. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit property originally belongs to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent had executed a settlement deed in favour of the husband of the 1st petitioner/ father of the 2nd petitioner who is none other than the brother of the 4th respondent. Even prior to the date of settlement, the property was handed 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 over to the settlee and the same was also recited in the settlement deed itself. Further, the settlor has no power and authority to cancel the settlement deed. It is settled law that the unilateral cancellation of settlement is not valid. Therefore, the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed by the 4th respondent dated 21.08.2013 is not valid. He also placed reliance of the Judgment this Court in M/s.Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal reported in AIR 2011 MADRAS 66, and W.P.(MD) No.28161 of 2022 (Pechiammal Vs. The Sub Registrar, Melur, Tuticorin) dated 30.01.2023.3. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the so called settlement deed said to have executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the settlee who is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner was never acted upon. The settlement deed itself is sham and nominal. Even the recitals of the settlement deed itself is nto correct. Further, the land was with the 4th respondent only and the Patta also stands 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 in the name of the 4th respondent. Even after the settlement, the possession was denied that the 4th respondent constructed a building and also gave financial help to the 2nd petitioner. Therefore, she is in possession of the property. Though the settlee of the property mentioned in the settlement deed only the vacant land, whereas, at present the 4th respondent has constructed a building and all the revenue records, Tax receipts stand in the name of the 4th respondent. Since the 4th respondent is in possession and since the settlement deed itself is not acted upon which is sham and nominal, the citations referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.4. It is seen that the 4th respondent is said to have executed the settlement deed in favour of the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner on 28.01.2011. Subsequently, the 4th respondent is said to have cancelled the said settlement deed on 21.08.2013. According to the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 petitioner, unilateral cancellation is not valid. According to the private respondent, settlement itself was not acted upon and the same is sham and nominal.5. Though the recitals of the settlement deed it is mentioned as already possession was handed over to the settlee and the settlee was in possession and after the death of the settlee, the writ petitioners were in possession of the property, he has not produced any document. Further in the settlement deed itself it is mentioned as vacant site, whereas, the 4th respondent submits that the recitals seen in the settlement deed are false and it is only sham and nominal document and never acted upon and the possession is with the settler and no delivery of possession was effected. One of the main contention of the 4th respondent is that valid settlement deed is delivery of possession. 6. Therefore, it is for the settlee to establish the delivery of possession and acceptance of possession. Though the petitioners have not 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 produced any records except the copy of the settlement deed, cancellation of the settlement deed and Death Certificate and legal heir certificate of the settlee, there is no other document to show that the settlement deed was acted upon and the delivery of possession was effected and the settlee accepted the settlement deed and took possession. 7. Further, the 4th respondent vehemently disputes the validity of the settlement deed and delivery of possession and now all the revenue records stand in the name of the 4th respondent and she has constructed a house. 8. It is settled proposition of law that unilateral cancellation is not valid in law. However, whether the settlement deed was acted upon, whether the delivery of possession was effected, whether the settlee accepted the possession and whether the settlement deed came to be effected, are all matters of evidence. The Writ Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry on those aspects.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 9. Under these circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. The parties are at liberty to work out their remedy before the Civil Court to establish the genuineness of the document, possession, right and title. 07.03.2024Index : Yes / No Speaking Order: Yes / NoNeutral Citation Case : Yes/NoKsa-27/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 To1. The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Chennai - 600 0282. The District Registrar Office of the District Registrar Salem West Registration District Salem3. The Sub Registrar Salem West Joint-1 Sub Registrar Office Salem8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 2502 of 2024 P.VELMURUGAN. J.Ksa-2W.P. No.2502 of 202407.03.20249/9