JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Pathanamthitta, which has declared rights over the petition schedule item No.2 property (hereinafter referred to as the “property”) in favour of the respondent; further declaring that Ext.A2 Deed of Cancellation executed by him is null and void. 2. The appellant alleges that the declarations made by the learned Family Court are improper in law; and hence that the further order of prohibitory injunction issued against him, from dispossessing the respondent herein from the property, is also beyond forensic competence. He thus prays that the judgment and decree be set aside. 3. Sri.R.S.Sarat – learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the edifice of the respondent's case before the learned Family Court, in O.P.No.1015/2016, was that she is the owner of the “property” on the strength of Ext.A1 - “Gift Deed” executed by his client in her favour; but that, this is untenable since, the latter had cancelled the said document through Ext.A2 Deed, three months after it had been executed. He argued that, when Ext.A1 “Gift Deed” had not taken effect - with the respondent not having taken possession of the “property”, or transferred its registry in her name - it was wholly within his client's competence to have executed Ext.A2 Cancellation Deed, thus to cancel the gift which he had made in favour of the respondent. 4. Sri.R.S.Sarat further explained that Ext.A1 “Gift Deed”, was executed by the appellant under the hope that the parties would live together as husband and wife, which is manifest from the covenants therein to the effect that it was being done on account of his affection and love for the respondent; but that, to his dismay, she refused to comply with her obligations in the matrimonial union, thus constraining him to execute Ext.A2 - Cancellation Deed. He concluded his submissions saying that, Ext.A1 was within the competence of his client to have cancelled because, it was a conditional “Gift Deed”, there being a condition incorporated in it that the respondent cannot sell the “property” without his written permission any time in the future. He thus reiteratingly prayed that this appeal be allowed. 5. Sri.Manu Ramachandran – learned Counsel for the respondent, refuted the afore submissions, asserting that the facts stated by Sri.R.S.Sarat are not accurate or complete. He thus reiteratingly prayed that this appeal be allowed. 5. Sri.Manu Ramachandran – learned Counsel for the respondent, refuted the afore submissions, asserting that the facts stated by Sri.R.S.Sarat are not accurate or complete. He explained that there were two properties involved between the parties; and that his client had filed O.P.No.435/2014 on the files of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta (which was initially filed before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, and transferred), wherein, she sought for declaration of title of another extent of property, which had been purchased by the parties in their joint names with the sums she obtained by sale of her paternal share. He submitted that, it was when that Original Petition was pending, that the appellant herein declared before the learned Family Court that he had executed Ext.A2 with respect to the “property” in question; and that this came as a shock to her, thus forcing her to file the Original Petition, from which the impugned judgment has emanated. 6. Sri.Manu Ramachandran then proceeded to his next argument that Ext.A1 is not a “Gift Deed”, but, a Settlement Deed; and that it was executed in his client's favour because its purchase was financed by the sale of her gold ornaments given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. He, however, conceded that this has not been specifically mentioned in Ext.A1; but argued that this, by itself, would not denude her rights over the “property” because, she became its full owner from 19.09.2011 - being its date; and therefore, that its unilateral cancellation by the appellant through Ext.A2 is legally and forensically impermissible. He predicated that the actions of the appellant are writ with malice because, in Ext.A2, the specific covenant made by him is that the cancellation is being done solely since his client - namely the respondent, and her parents, told him that they do not want the property, which is factually incorrect and unproven. He thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 7. We have evaluated the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the evidence and materials on record - which we see are Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the respondent; and Exts.B1 to B2 on the side of the appellant. Further, the respondent has deposed as PW1; while the father of the appellant, as his Power of Attorney holder, offered testimony as RW1. 8. Further, the respondent has deposed as PW1; while the father of the appellant, as his Power of Attorney holder, offered testimony as RW1. 8. When we examine the depositions of the witnesses, we see that the parties have spoken exactly in terms of their rival pleadings and contentions; and none of those are really impeached by the other. The fact that Ext.A1 is a “Settlement Deed” is proven from its first line; and hence the argument of Sri.R.S.Sarat, that it is a “Gift Deed” cannot obtain our approval. No doubt, in many of its attributes a Gift Deed and a Settlement Deed may have commonality; but when it comes to the latter, it transfers rights over the property to the beneficiary with immediate effect and would not require the other criteria of a gift to be complied with, or proved. 9. That apart, in the case at hand, there is nothing on record, except the assertion of RW1, that the respondent had not taken the “property” in possession, or had not used it; but he tries to establish this citing the fact that she had not transferred its Registry in her name. It must, however, be kept in mind that Ext.A1 is dated 19.09.2011 and that it is within less than three months thereafter that the appellant had executed Ext.A2 Cancellation Deed; thus rendering it logically obvious that no delay or failure can be attributed to the respondent in applying for the transfer of Registry of the “property” in her name. Therefore, this solely can never aid the case of the appellant, that the Settlement Deed had not been acted upon by the respondent. 10. To add on this, as rightly argued by Sri.Manu Ramachandran, what is expressly and admittedly stated in Ext.A2 is that the cancellation of Ext.A1 was done because the respondent and her parents told the appellant that they do not want the property; but this remains unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, particularly when the evidence of PW1 – the respondent herein, is to the contrary. 11. That brings us to the question whether a unilateral cancellation of Ext.A1 was permissible to have been done by the appellant in law. 11. That brings us to the question whether a unilateral cancellation of Ext.A1 was permissible to have been done by the appellant in law. We do not require to labor much on this issue because, several judgments – both of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - have answered it to the negative; a few of them being Ambujakshyamma v. Kesavan Kamalasanan [2010 KHC 6237], Lali Yohannan v. State of Kerala and others [ 2019 KHC 49 ] and Illoth Valappil Ambunhi (D) by LRs v. Kunhambu Karanavan [2019 KHC 5629]. We see that the learned Family Court has applied the ratio in the afore cited precedents correctly in the impugned judgment. 12. Resultantly, when one cannot find Ext.A2 to have been executed by the appellant with competence, particularly when Ext.A1 - Settlement Deed is deposed by the respondent, as PW1, to have been fully accepted and acted upon by her – which testimony remains uncontroverted – we obtain no reason to interfere with the findings of, or the declarations made, by the learned Family Court. 13. This appeal is, consequently, dismissed; but taking into account the peculiar circumstances involved, we make no order as to costs.