Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 548 (KER)

Jose Paul S/o. Paul v. Paul S/o. Paul

2018-07-11

P.SOMARAJAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : The plaintiff who suffered a dismissal of the suit by way of decree of the first appellate court (District Court, Ernakulam) in A.S.No.312 of 2005, dated 27.6.2005, reversing the decree and judgment of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha in O.S.No.434 of 1997 came up with this appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that Ext.A5 cancellation deed executed by the first defendant subsequent to Ext.A4 settlement deed is valid and to set aside Ext.A4 settlement deed in favour of the defendants. 2. The property originally belonged to the father, who is defendant No.1 in the suit. He had executed Ext.A4 settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2 in the year 1996. After more or less one year, in the year 1997, Ext.A5 cancellation deed was executed by defendant No.1 cancelling Ext.A4 settlement deed of the year 1996 and executed another deed of conveyance, exhibited as A3, in favour of the plaintiff. Based on the said document, claiming title over the property the plaintiff came up with the suit. 3. The trial court decreed the suit holding that Ext.A5 cancellation deed is valid and granted a decree setting aside Ext.A4 settlement deed. It was reversed in appeal and the suit was ultimately dismissed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff came up with this second appeal. 4. The questions raised before this court are: (1) What actually amounts to a settlement deed? Is it a gift or a will or testament, whether the deed in question would satisfy the requirement of a valid Will or whether it would fall under the purview of a gift? (2) What would be the effect of unilateral cancellation of the deed in question by the executant and whether the subsequent execution of a document of conveyance would convey any right, interest or title over the property to the beneficiary therein? 5. The word “settlement” is not defined anywhere in the Transfer of Property Act. But it is defined in the Specific Relief Act as well as in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The definition given to the word “settlement” under Section 2(b) of the Specific Relief Act reads as follows: “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) …... But it is defined in the Specific Relief Act as well as in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The definition given to the word “settlement” under Section 2(b) of the Specific Relief Act reads as follows: “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) …... (b) “settlement” means an instrument other than a will or codicil as defined by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925) whereby the destination or devolution of successive interests movable or immovable property is disposed of or is agreed to be disposed of;” 6. The definition given to the word “settlement” in Section 2(24) of the Central Act is identical with that of Section 2(q) in the State Act, which reads as follows: 2. Definitions.– In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,- ….... ….. (24) “Settlement” means any non-testamentary disposition, in writing, of movable or immovable property made – (a) in consideration of marriage, (b) for the purpose of distributing property of the settler among his family or those for whom he desires to provide, or for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on him, or (c) for any religious or charitable purpose; and includes an agreement in writing to make such a disposition and, where, any such disposition has not been made in writing, any instrument recording, whether by way of declaration of trust or otherwise, the terms of any such disposition;” 7. Going by the abovesaid two definitions it is clear that a wider definition was given to the word “settlement” under the Central and State Stamp Act and a group of documents held together and brought under the one caption/category of 'settlement'. The said definition given to the word 'settlement' under the Central and State Stamp Act is only for the purpose of computation of stamp duty payable. A non-testamentary disposition in writing either in consideration of marriage or distributing the property among family members or to dependent on him or for any religions or charitable purpose were included under the definition “settlement” under the Central and State Stamp Act. In other words, certain category of documents brought together under the caption “settlement” for the purpose of computation of stamp duty payable. In other words, certain category of documents brought together under the caption “settlement” for the purpose of computation of stamp duty payable. In the said circumstances, the definition given under the Central (Indian Stamp Act, 1899) and State Stamp Act (Kerala Stamp Act, 1959) for the word 'settlement' cannot be extended either to understand or to interpret the nature of a document except for the purpose of computation of stamp duty payable under the document as per the said Acts. 8. The definition given to the word “settlement” in the Specific Relief Act acquires importance at this juncture as it defines what amounts to settlement - an instrument (other than a will or codicil as defined by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925)) whereby the destination or devolution of successive interests movable or immovable property is disposed of or is agreed to be disposed of. In substance, there is no much difference between the definition given to the word “settlement” in the Central and State Stamp Act from that of what is defined under Section 2(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The only difference is that a document by which either destination or devolution of successive interests agreed to be disposed of is also brought under the definition under Section 2(b) of the Specific Relief Act. 9. Both the definitions under the State and Central Stamp Act and the Specific Relief Act intakes the ingredient which constitute a gift of property as mandated under Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. What is involved in the instant case is a registered settlement deed by which the only property of the executant had been given to the transferee by reserving the right to take yield from the property and also the right to reside in the house situated in the property along with his wife. There is a provision in the document permitting the donee/transferee to mutate the property in his name. This would prima facie show that the document transfers a valid title over the property in favour of the donee but subject to the life interest of the executant and his wife and the donee was permitted to mutate the property in his name. It is further recited in the document that after their death the life interest also would go to the donee. It is further recited in the document that after their death the life interest also would go to the donee. The property was given in consideration of love and affection of the executant father towards his son, the donee. This would satisfy the ingredient which constitute a valid settlement deed transferring the entire title over the property in favour of the donee and it is in essence a gift. The fact that the property was mutated in his name amounts to acceptance of the gift and thereafter there cannot be any unilateral revocation by way of cancellation by the donor and hence the cancellation deed unilaterally done by the executant and the subsequent deed executed are not binding on the donee who obtained the property under the abovesaid settlement deed. The subsequent cancellation by the donor having no transferable right, title or interest over the property is having no legal effect and it is void ab initio as it would not in any way affect the right, title and interest held by the donee under Ext.A4 document. In fact, the above said execution of the document amounts to admission of execution of Ext.A4 document. Necessarily, the subsequent deed of conveyance executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff will not have any legal sanctity. The suit filed by the plaintiff claiming title over the property based on the said document will not stand and hence second appeal fails. The second appeal is dismissed. No costs.