Unilateral Cancellation of Release Deed Unsustainable: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Decree in Property Dispute

In a significant judgment, the High Court of Kerala, presided over by the Honourable Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan, overturned a trial court's decision in a property dispute case (RFA No. 207 of 2009). The High Court's ruling emphasized the legal principle that once rights over immovable property are transferred through a release deed, it "could not be annulled by the executant on the mere execution of a cancellation deed."

The appellants, Leelavathi @ Leela Sankar and others, contested the trial court's decree which had declared certain documents concerning property rights as null and void. The disputed documents included Ext.A2, a Release Deed executed by Ammu in favor of the appellants, and its subsequent cancellation through Ext.A3.

Justice Ninan highlighted in his judgment that “there could not be a unilateral cancellation” of such deeds. This observation came as the court found the trial court's reasoning - that Ext.A2 ceased to have any force after the execution of Ext.A3 cancellation deed - legally unsustainable. The High Court's decision brings clarity to the legal understanding of property rights transfers and the limitations of cancellation deeds.

Further, the High Court dismissed the contention of misrepresentation in executing Ext.A2. The appellants' claim that the deed was misrepresented to Ammu was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court's examination revealed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, leading to the conclusion that Ammu was aware of the nature of the document she executed.

Adding to the legal complexities, the court also addressed the issue of the suit's maintainability, following the dismissal of an earlier suit filed by Ammu. The High Court noted that a fresh suit was barred under various orders of the Civil Procedure Code, considering the nature of the dismissal of the previous suit.

The judgment also touched upon the challenges against Ext.A4 Release Deed and Ext.A5 Partition Deed. It was held that the plaintiffs, being legal heirs of Ammu, had no standing to challenge the rights of Kalyani, whose heirs had not contested Ext.A4.

Date of Decision: 11th January 2024

LEELAVATHI @ LEELA SANKAR VS CHANDRIKA