Unilateral Cancellation Of Settlement Deed Not Permissible; Only Course Open Is To Approach Civil Court U/S 31 Specific Relief Act: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court reiterated that a registered settlement deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally by a party to it and the only course open is to approach a competent Civil Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.

In that context, the Bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that, "It is also important to note that if he really intends to cancel the document, he cannot cancel the same unilaterally but he can approach the appropriate Court seeking cancellation of the same. It is only the Court which can cancel the deed duly executed under the circumstances mentioned in Section 31 and other provisions of the Specific Relief Act."

Counsel MV Hiremath appeared for the appellant, while Counsel RV Jayaprakash appeared for the respondents.

In the case, the plaintiff sought a declaration of the cancellation of a deed dated 14.04.1971, cancelling a settlement deed from 08.05.1969, and declaring several subsequent sale deeds as void. The plaintiff claimed to be the son of Siddappa, who was the son of Basappa.

The suit properties originally belonged to Smt. Mannamma, who passed away in 1959, and Basappa and Siddappa continued to enjoy the properties until 1969 when they gifted them to the plaintiff through a settlement deed. However, in 1971, Basappa, influenced by Mallanagowda, cancelled the settlement deed and sold the properties to him, despite there being no need or justification for such actions. Mallanagowda subsequently sold some of the properties to the defendants.

Defendant No.4, in their defence, argued that the settlement deed from 1969 was nominal and not acted upon. Basappa continued to possess and cultivate the properties even after the settlement deed. Basappa voluntarily cancelled the settlement deed in 1971 and sold the properties to Mallanagowda, who then sold them to the defendants. Defendant No.4 contended that there were no grounds for the suit to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

The Court observed that, "very cancellation of the settlement deed is not permissible and by canceling the settlement deed, the said sale deed was executed but the said sale deed does not convey any title to any person since the same is a defective title in respect of both i.e., the husband of defendant No.1 as well as defendant No.4 who is the appellant herein."

It was further held that, "The Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is very clear that the person has the discretion to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudicating the said instrument to be cancelled even though in law a void instrument is unenforceable, has no value in the eye of law, void ab initio. The law provides for cancellation of such instrument and the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally and the very cancellation of settlement deed is without any right and the same cannot convey any title and execution of the sale deed in favour of Mallanagowda also does not convey any title and claim that he is the bonafide purchaser cannot be accepted".

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Duggatti Matada Nagaraj vs Danappa & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment