Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3127 (MAD)

Sunitha Gridharidas v. Sub Registrar, Chennai

2022-09-02

N.ANAND VENKATESH

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the document dated 31.12.2013 and registered as Doc.No.5149 of 2013, on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the registration of the revocation of settlement deed dated 31.12.2013 as Document No.5149 of 2013, by the 1st respondent. 2. The case of the petitioners is that Mrs.Ishwari Bai, who is the mother of the 1st and 2nd petitioners and the grandmother of the 3rd petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 01.10.2009 in favour of the petitioners and it was presented for registration before the 1st respondent and registered as Document No.3479 of 2009. The further case of the petitioners is that the subject property that was settled in favour of the petitioners vested in them absolutely. 3. It is stated that Iswari Bai passed away at the age of 88, on 03.03.2015. All of a sudden, the 3rd respondent who is the brother of the 1st and 2nd petitioners started claiming absolute right over the subject property on the basis of a settlement deed dated 31.12.2013. When the petitioners enquired about the same, it came to their knowledge that the said Ishwari Bai had unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed dated 01.10.2009 through the revocation deed dated 31.12.2013. Aggrieved by the registration of the revocation deed by the 1st respondent, whereby the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioners was unilaterally cancelled, the present Writ Petition has been filed questioning the same. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and he has taken a stand to the effect that the settlement deed dated 01.10.2009 was brought about by the petitioners by perpetrating fraud, coercion and undue influence on the mother. The further stand taken by the 3rd respondent is that the property in question never vested with the petitioners absolutely since the settlor had retained life interest over the property and she never handed over possession to the petitioners and the petitioners were not even given the power of alienation. The further stand taken by the 3rd respondent is that the property in question never vested with the petitioners absolutely since the settlor had retained life interest over the property and she never handed over possession to the petitioners and the petitioners were not even given the power of alienation. It is further stated that the mother, immediately on coming to know of the fraudulent document, cancelled the same through a deed of revocation dated 31.12.2013 and on the same day, an irrevocable settlement deed was executed in favour of the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent became the absolute owner of the property. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent also dealt with the property by executing a mortgage on 02.01.2014 for securing the loan taken by him for his business purposes. The mother passed away on 3.03.2015 and taking advantage of the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed subsequently. Hence, the 3rd respondent has questioned the very maintainability of this Writ Petition and sought for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. The above Writ Petition came up for hearing on 17.8.2022 and this Court passed the following order: This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the latest judgment of the Hon'ble First Bench in W.A.No.984 of 2022, dated 24.06.2022, submitted that the Sub Registrar does not have the power or the authority even to entertain a document which seeks to unilaterally cancel an earlier document. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no requirement to go into disputed facts and the writ petition has to be allowed on this ground alone. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17232 of 2021, dated 27.07.2022, wherein, the Division Bench Judgment has been relied upon and it was held that the presence of the Settlor and Settlee while canceling the Settlement Deed is mandatory and in the absence of the same, the unilateral cancellation of the Settlement Deed is non est in the eye of law. 3. 3. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submitted that the Judgment of the Division Bench cannot be applied across the Board even without reference to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Deed. The learned Senior Counsel in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in D.Raja vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar No.1, Saidapet, South Chennai & Others reported in 2016 4 LW 859 . In the said judgment, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out to the reference made to the terms of the Settlement Deed and the reasons assigned for not interfering with the cancellation of the Settlement Deed. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Sarojini Amma vs. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar reported in 2019 11 SCC 391 and submitted that where conditions are stipulated in the document and the right has been retained by the Settlor during her life time, the settlement is incomplete and the title will continue with the Settlor and therefore, the Settlor will be entitled to cancel the document during his or her life time. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter, brought to the notice of this Court, the terms of the Settlement Deed dated 01.10.2009 which is subject matter in the present case and specifically relied upon Clauses 1, 2, 5 and 6 and submitted that the Settlor retained the possession over the property, the Settlor retained the right, title and interest over the property during her life time and the Settlor denied the right of the Settlees from in any way alienating the property during her life time. Thus according to the learned Senior Counsel, the right and title over the property never passed on to the Settlees and therefore, the Settlor had every right to cancel the document. In cases of this nature, it was contended that the Settlement Deed can be cancelled unilaterally, since the Settlor retains the right, title and interest over the property and such a document can be entertained by the Sub Registrar and the Division Bench judgment that was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to cases of this nature. 4. 4. Before passing final orders in this writ petition, this Court wants to ascertain the stand of the Registration Department, since this dispute has been going back and forth and it has resulted in loads of judgments being cited on either side. The Registration Department must specifically take a stand and inform this Court as to whether, a) They will never entertain a document seeking to unilaterally cancel an earlier document, irrespective of the terms and conditions that are imposed in the earlier document, or b) Such deed of unilateral cancellation will be entertained subject to the terms and conditions of the earlier document and where the right, title and interest over the property is retained during the life time of the executor. 5. The stand taken by the Registration Department will bring a lot of clarity, since a person who presents a document seeking for unilateral cancellation of an earlier document will definitely know whether it will be entertained or it will never be entertained under any circumstances. This clarity will resolve most of the problems atleast in future. 6. In view of the above, the Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhome, Chennai – 600 004 is suo motu added as the 4th respondent in this writ petition. It will suffice if a status report is filed by the Inspector General of Registration by taking a specific stand in this case. 7. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the impleaded respondent. 8. Post this case under the caption 'Part Heard Cases' on 30.08.2022 at 2.15 p.m. 6. Pursuant to the above order, the Inspector General of Registration has filed an affidavit and the relevant portions in the affidavit are extracted hereunder: “6. 7. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the impleaded respondent. 8. Post this case under the caption 'Part Heard Cases' on 30.08.2022 at 2.15 p.m. 6. Pursuant to the above order, the Inspector General of Registration has filed an affidavit and the relevant portions in the affidavit are extracted hereunder: “6. It is reverently submitted that in view of the legal position emerging from various judgments of Hon'ble Division Bench and in particular of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated supra, a circular was issued by this respondent vide no.52666/C1/2018, dated 29.11.2018 through which all the registering officers were instructed to follow the guidelines illustrated in the circular in respect of unilateral cancellation of settlement documents as given below: a) Any settlement deed wherein no condition whatsoever has been imposed on the Settlee, and if a unilateral revocation/cancellation of such settlement deed by the Settlors is presented for registration, registering officers shall not accept such unilateral revocation/cancellation deeds for registration and check slip shall be issued in this regard. b) Such revocation deeds can be accepted for registration only if Settlee has joined in execution and registration of the revocation deed. c) Any settlement deed wherein certain condition has been imposed on the Settlee, and if an unilateral revocation/cancellation of such settlement deed is executed by the Settlor clearly stating that Settlee has not fulfilled certain conditions imposed in the settlement deed, the same can be registered after ensuring that said conditions were specifically mentioned in the said Settlement deed. 7. It is submitted that the above said stand of this department has further been justified and confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.984 of 2022 order dated 24.06.2022. 8. It is submitted that this respondent in compliance to another order of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.No.12388 of 2020, dated 22.07.2021, further issued a circular No.25644/C1/2021, Dated. 11.08.2021 instructing the registering officers to refuse unilateral cancellation of documents subject to instructions given in the earlier circular dated 29.11.2018 stated supra. 9. It is submitted that in view of the legal position of this department stated supra, it is reiterated that such deed of unilateral cancellation of (earlier) settlement deed shall be entertained subject to the terms and conditions of such earlier settlement deed. 10. 9. It is submitted that in view of the legal position of this department stated supra, it is reiterated that such deed of unilateral cancellation of (earlier) settlement deed shall be entertained subject to the terms and conditions of such earlier settlement deed. 10. It is further submitted that this respondent has counselled many petitioners/senior citizens/parents and those who were seeking orders for registration of unilateral revocation/cancellation of (earlier) settlement deeds executed by them voluntarily without any preconditions to their near and dear, on account of breach of trust by those settles claiming under the family settlement documents, to approach the competent authorities (i.e. the District Collector) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to get proper remedy.” 7. This Court directed the Inspector General of Registration to file an affidavit only to ascertain the stand of the department insofar as entertaining documents which unilaterally revokes or cancels an earlier settlement deed. Now that this Court is satisfied with the stand taken by the registration department, this Court will deal with the facts of the present case. 8. Heard Mr.Sunnysheen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1, R2 and Mr.C.Manishankar, learned Senior Counsel for R3. 9. This Court will now focus on the relevant clauses that were relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent inorder to substantiate his submission to the effect that the settlement deed did not create any vested right in favour of the petitioners. The clauses relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel are extracted hereunder: “01. …Schedule property belonging to or reputed to belong thereto or formingpart thereof, over the Schedule property after retaining a LIFE INTEREST for the SETTLOR over the Schedule property hereby settled and the SETTLEES herein shall hold and enjoy the Schedule property as full and absolute owners thereof with full powers of alienation, only after the LIFE TIME of the SETTLOR. 02. The SETTLOR further confirms and assures that after the LIFE TIME of herself the SETTLEES herein alone shall have the right, title and interest in the Schedule property and anyone else claiming through from the SETTLOR or in trust for her shall not have any right, title and interest whatsoever over the Schedule property hereby settled unto the SETTLEES herein. 03. 03. The SETTLOR doth hereby declare and assure the SETTLEES that the said Schedule property hereby settled is the absolute property of the SETTLOR herein and that the SETTLOR has every manner of right to deal with the same in the manner hereby done. 05. The SETTLOR doth hereby declare and covenant with the SETTLEES that the SETTLEES shall be entitled to the Schedule property, after the LIFE TIME of the SETTLOR and the SETTLOR confirms that there are no suits, appeals or petitions pending in Court in which any question relating to the Schedule property is in issue, that there are no attachments, mortgage, lien, encumbrance, proclamations or orders in respect of the Schedule property. 06. The Schedule property hereby settled on the SETTLEES shall be enjoyed by the SETTLEES without the right to alienate the same until the LIFE TIME of the SETTLOR and the SETTLEES shall deal with the Schedule property as full owners thereof only after the LIFE TIME of the SETTLOR without any obstruction or hindrance from any one else claiming under the SETTLOR or in trust for her.” 10. At this juncture, it will also be relevant to take note of the reasons assigned in the deed of revocation through which the above settlement deed was unilaterally cancelled. The relevant Clauses are extracted hereunder: “WHEREAS a Settlement Deed dated 01.10.2009 registered as document No. 3479 of 2009, SRO Purasawalkam was executed by me in favour of my daughters 1) Mrs Sunitha Girdharidas: 2) Mrs. Jyothi Girdharidas and my granddaughter. 3) Mrs Pooja Ravindrakumar currently married to Manikandan Sankaran. WHEREAS the party of the first part state the above mentioned settlement deed was forced out of me and signature was obtained my daughters and granddaughter in front of unknown witness by coercion and undue influence. This can be ascertained by the fact that I have been living with my son Mr. Sureshkumar Girdharidas Chabria only. My daughters got married and are well settled in life and my granddaughter is also married and well settled in life. I had intended and wished to settle the schedule property exclusively and permanently for my only son, Mr. Sureshkumar Girdharidas Chabria. Sureshkumar Girdharidas Chabria only. My daughters got married and are well settled in life and my granddaughter is also married and well settled in life. I had intended and wished to settle the schedule property exclusively and permanently for my only son, Mr. Sureshkumar Girdharidas Chabria. WHEREAS when I came to know that my son has been excluded under the document No. 3479 of 2009, dated 01.10.2009, SRO Purasawalkam, I realised that my 2 daughters and 1 granddaughter have ticked me into executing the settlement deed dated 01.10.2009, registered as document No. 3479 of 2009, SRO Purasawalkam and therefore the said settlement deed does not hold valid in law.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the settlor who was none other than the mother had retained life interest in the subject property and had lived in the subject property during her lifetime and did not give the power of alienation to the petitioners during her lifetime and that by itself does not take away the vested interest that was bestowed in favour of the petitioners. To substantiate the said submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon Section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act and also relied upon the judgments in J.Kuppuswami Mudali and Ors. V.Mahalingam reported in MANU/TN/0970/1996 and P. Ram Mohan v. Lalitha Raghuraman & Ors reported in 89 L.W. 175. 12. On carefully going through the settlement deed dated 01.10.2009, it can be seen that the said document does not impose any condition on the petitioners to be fulfilled for the purpose of the subject property vesting in their favour. In other words, there was no contingent interest which imposes a condition precedent which requires to be fulfilled even before the transfer could take place. Only in such cases where there is a contingent interest, the transfer takes effect only on the fulfilment of the condition and thereafter, the interest becomes vested. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent placed reliance upon the judgments reported in (2016) 4 L.W. 859 and (2019) 11 SCC 391 , referred supra. Insofar as the first judgment is concerned, this Court took into consideration the relevant Clause in the settlement deed and held as follows: “8. In this context, the recitals in the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 has to be looked into. Insofar as the first judgment is concerned, this Court took into consideration the relevant Clause in the settlement deed and held as follows: “8. In this context, the recitals in the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 has to be looked into. As per the recitals contained in the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 executed by the second respondent, possession of the property has not been handed over to the petitioner. For ready reference, the recitals in the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 are extracted hereunder:— “TAMIL” 9. It is evident from the recitals contained in the Settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 executed by the second respondent that she had reserved her right to collect the rental income from the shops leased out within the property covered in the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 till her life time. Similarly, she has indicated in categorical terms that the settlement deed would come into force only after her life time, meaning thereby, the second respondent her reserved her right to cancel the settlement deed if the petitioner acted contrary to the terms of the settlement. In this case, it is contended by the second respondent that inspite of such categorical recitals contained in the settlement deed, the petitioner has mutated the revenue records in his name and acted contrary to her interest. It is further stated that the petitioner attempted to murder the second respondent and thrown her out of her own property. This has prompted the second respondent to cancel the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 by executing a Deed of Cancellation dated 06.11.2014. In any event, the recitals in the settlement deed clearly indicates that the petitioner was not put in possession of the property covered therein and the second respondent retained her possession as also the right to collect the rental income till her life time. The recitals would further indicate that after the life time of the second respondent, the petitioner and the third respondent can develop the property by constructing a septic tank etc., In this background, can it be said that the Deed of Cancellation dated 06.11.2014has been cancelled unilaterally and it has to be declared as null and void. The answer must be in the negative. 10. It is well settled proposition of law that an unilateral cancellation of a deed or instrument is legally impermissible and it is unenforceable in the eye of law. The answer must be in the negative. 10. It is well settled proposition of law that an unilateral cancellation of a deed or instrument is legally impermissible and it is unenforceable in the eye of law. The reason being, if a right is conferred upon a person by executing a settlement deed or power of attorney deed or any other instrument, the person in whose favour such deed or instrument has been executed accrues and derives a right. To nullify such right, the settlor cannot be permitted to cancel the instrument without issuing a notice expressing his or her intention to cancel the deed. For example, a power of attorney is executed in favour of a person to do certain acts with right of alienation of the property. On the strength of such power of attorney, the agent would have resorted to sell the property by entering into an agreement of sale or sold the property to a prospective buyer by executing a sale deed. After such sale, if the power of attorney is cancelled retrospectively by the principal with an intention to undo certain acts done by the agent, third party right will intervene and in such context, the person who innocently purchased the property will be affected. That is the reason why before cancelling an instrument, notice must be given to the person indicating that he should no longer act on the basis of the power of attorney or settlement deed as he is intending to execute a deed of cancellation. If, inspite of such notice any sale is made or the property is alienated, then it can be concluded that such sale is made only to defeat the right of the settlor or owner of the property by the agent or settlee as the case may be. In other words, by reason of the settlement deed or power of attorney or any other instrument, the person in whose favour such an instrument has been executed must have derived some right and if the instrument is cancelled, it will not only affect the agent but the persons with whom he had entered into any transaction. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has not derived any such right. The pleadings made by the petitioner relating to possession of the property in question isbelied by the recitals contained in the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 executed by the second respondent. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has not derived any such right. The pleadings made by the petitioner relating to possession of the property in question isbelied by the recitals contained in the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 executed by the second respondent. If possession was really delivered in favour of the petitioner, then it can be said that the settlement deed has been acted upon by the petitioner. When the recitals in the settlement deed categorically indicate that the title of the property will transfer only after the life time of the second respondent, it can safely be concluded that no right or title, much less possession of the property has been transferred in favour of the petitioner. Further, immediately after cancelling the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 by executing the Deed of Cancellation dated 06.11.2014, the second respondent has executed a sale deed in favour of the third respondent thereby further encumbrance has been created in the property in question. Thus, as on date, the third respondent is the owner of the property which was covered in the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008. Therefore, in the above stated peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the opinion that the decisions relied on by the counsel for the petitioner to contend that the second respondent has unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed dated 13.11.2008 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the registration of the cancellation deed dated 06.11.2014 on the file of the first respondent. However, it is made clear that this order will not foreclose the right of the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law.” 14. It is clear from the above judgment that the settlor had clearly stated that the settlement deed would come into force only after her lifetime and the settlor had also reserved her right to cancel the settlement deed if the settlee acted contrary to the terms of the settlement. Such Clauses are not found in the settlement deed dated 01.10.2009 executed in favour of the petitioners. Hence, the above judgment will not come to the aid of the 3rd respondent. 15. Such Clauses are not found in the settlement deed dated 01.10.2009 executed in favour of the petitioners. Hence, the above judgment will not come to the aid of the 3rd respondent. 15. Insofar as the second judgement that was relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent, that was a case where the deed of transfer (gift deed) was executed for a consideration and it was made conditional subject to the condition that the donee would look after the donor and her husband and subject to the further condition that the gift would take effect after the death of the donor. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court held that there was no completed gift of the property in favour of the donee and hence, it was within the right of the donor to cancel the document. This judgment will not help the 3rd respondent since the ratio in that judgment turned out on the peculiar facts of that case. In the present case, there were no conditions imposed against the petitioners. 16. The next issue to be taken into consideration is as to whether the settlor retaining a life interest over the subject property and continuing to be in possession of the property and denying the right of alienation in favour of the petitioners during her lifetime, can be construed as a conditional bequest without conferring any vested interest in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, does it give the right to the settlor to unilaterally cancel the settlement deed ? 17. The settlor has confirmed and assured that after her lifetime, the petitioners alone will have right, title and interest in the subject property and no one else claiming through the settlor shall have any such right. This makes it clear that the vested remainder was absolutely given in favour of the petitioners. The same was further confirmed at Clause 5 of the settlement deed. 18. It is now a settled law that a person gets a vested interest in a property when he acquires a proprietary right in it and the right of enjoyment alone is deferred to a future date, till the lifetime of the settlor. In the same way, such postponement of the right of the power to transfer the property by the settlee, does not take away the vested interest of the settlee. In the same way, such postponement of the right of the power to transfer the property by the settlee, does not take away the vested interest of the settlee. The only test to be applied is to see if a right has been created in praesenti. This principle of law has been clearly stated in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 19. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of Sections 19 and 21 of the Transfer of Property Act in the case of Usha Subbarao v. B.N. Vishveswaraiah reported in (1996) 5 SCC 201 and it was held as follows: “9. … For the purpose of determining the date of vesting of the interest in the bequest it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between a vested interest and a contingent interest. An interest is said to be a vested interest when there is immediate right of present enjoyment or a present right for future enjoyment. An interest is said to be contingent if the right of enjoyment is made dependent upon some event or condition which may or may not happen. On the happening of the event or condition a contingent interest becomes a vested interest. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as well as the Indian Succession Act, 1925 recognise this distinction between a vested interest and a contingent interest. Vested interest has been thus defined in Section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: “19. Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created in favour of a person without specifying the time when it is to take effect, or in terms specifying that it is to take effect forthwith or on the happening of an event which must happen, such interest is vested, unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of the transfer. A vested interest is not defeated by the death of the transferee before he obtains possession. A vested interest is not defeated by the death of the transferee before he obtains possession. Explanation.—An intention that an interest shall not be vested is not to be inferred from a provision whereby the enjoyment thereof is postponed, or whereby a prior interest in the same property is given or reserved to some other person, or whereby income arising from the property is directed to be accumulated until the time of enjoyment arrives, or from a provision that if a particular event shall happen the interest shall pass to another person.” 10. In the Indian Succession Act provision with regard to date of vesting of a legacy when payment or possession is postponed is contained in Section 119 which provides as follows: “119. Date of vesting of legacy when payment or possession postponed.—Where by the terms of a bequest the legatee is not entitled to immediate possession of the thing bequeathed, a right to receive it at the proper time shall, unless a contrary intention appears by the Will, become vested in the legatee on the testator's death, and shall pass to the legatee's representatives if he dies before that time and without having received the legacy, and in such cases the legacy is from the testator's death said to be vested in interest. Explanation.—An intention that a legacy to any person shall not become vested in interest in him is not to be inferred merely from a provision whereby the payment or possession of the thing bequeathed is postponed, or whereby a prior interest therein is bequeathed to some other person, or whereby the income arising from the fund bequeathed is directed to be accumulated until the time of payment arrives, or from a provision that, if a particular event shall happen, the legacy shall go over to another person.” 13. In order to determine whether the appellant can claim any right in the properties of the testator, it is, therefore, necessary to examine the nature of the bequest that was made by the testator in favour of his five sons including the deceased husband of the appellant. In order to determine whether the appellant can claim any right in the properties of the testator, it is, therefore, necessary to examine the nature of the bequest that was made by the testator in favour of his five sons including the deceased husband of the appellant. If it is found that the bequest is in the nature of vested interest, it would vest in the husband of the appellant on the death of the testator and after the death of her husband the appellant, as his legal representative, would be entitled to claim her husband's interest in the properties. But in case the bequest is found to be in the nature of a contingent interest which was to vest in the legatees only after the death of Smt Nadiga Nanjamma, the appellant would not be entitled to claim any interest in the properties since her husband had predeceased Smt Nadiga Nanjamma.” 20. The above judgment captures the distinction between a vested interest and a contingent interest. Insofar as the vested interest is concerned, it can either be an immediate right of present enjoyment or a present right for future enjoyment and further the right or enjoyment is not made dependent upon some event or condition which may or may not happen. 21. The relevant Clauses in the settlement deed dated 01.10.2009 makes it abundantly clear that there was no condition imposed by making the right contingent upon any event or condition. Thus, the petitioners acquired vested interest in the subject property on the date of execution of settlement deed in their favour. The vested interest was not taken away merely because their enjoyment over the property and the right of alienation was postponed till the lifetime of the settlor. That is the reason why the settlor did not retain any right to cancel the settlement deed during her lifetime. 22. The reason that has been stated in the revocation deed dated 31.12.2013 does not talk about any non-fulfilment of condition by the petitioners. It merely states that the settlor was made to execute the document under coercion and undue influence and the son was not given any share in the property. This reason that has been assigned in the revocation deed, can never justify unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed. It merely states that the settlor was made to execute the document under coercion and undue influence and the son was not given any share in the property. This reason that has been assigned in the revocation deed, can never justify unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed. If really the settlement deed is sought to be cancelled on that ground, such cancellation or revocation can be carried out only by approaching a competent Civil Court and seeking for an appropriate relief. The reasons stated in the revocation deed obviously requires the recording of evidence and appreciation of evidence and it can only be done by a competent Civil Court. 23. The upshot of the above discussion is that the 1st respondent ought not to have entertained the revocation deed through which the earlier settlement deed was unilaterally cancelled and the 1st respondent ought to have directed the mother/settlor to work out her remedy only before a competent Civil Court. In view of the same, the registration of the revocation deed by the 1st respondent requires the interference of this Court. 24. In the result, the registration of the document dated 31.12.2013 registered as Document No. 5149 of 2013, is held to be null and void and non-est and the same is hereby quashed. It is left open to the 3rd respondent to work out his remedy before the Competent Civil Court. 25. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.