Smt. Jothi vs The Joint Sub-Registrar, District Registrar Office and G. Rajamanickam

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The second respondent is the husband of the petitioner. Earlier, the second respondent executed a Settlement Deed dated 16.07.2004 in favour of the petitioner, who is the wife. Later on, the said Settlement Deed was unilaterally cancelled by the second respondent vide Cancellation of Settlement Deed dated 28.05.2009, which was registered as Document No. 2188 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent. Now, the petitioner has sought to quash the said Cancellation of Settlement Deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the unilateral cancellation of Settlement Deed dated 28.05.2009, by the second respondent, registered as Document No. 2188 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent, is opposed to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal, The Inspector General of Registration and The Sub Registrar Ambattur, and hence, it has to be quashed.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the second respondent that unilateral Cancellation of Settlement Deed is bad as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to above. Further, according to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the second respondent has filed a suit seeking for declaration that the Settlement Deed dated 16.07.2004 executed in favour of the petitioner, is sham and nominal. In the light of the Full Bench Judgment referred to above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. However, it is made clear that the order passed herein could have no bearing to decide the issues that would arise in the suit filed by the second respondent in the competent Civil Court seeking to declare that the earliest Settlement Deed dated 16.07.2004 executed in favour of the petitioner herein, is sham and nominal.