JUDGMENT

Khare, J.-The short question that arises in this appeal is whether any parol evidence can be let in to substantiate a subsequent oral arrangement rescinding or modifying the terms of a registered settlement deed.

2. The property in dispute in this appeal was self-acquired property of one Muthuswamy Pillai. The said Muthuswamy Pillai had a concubine named Papammal and through her three sons and one daughter were born. One of the sons, Appavu Pillai died during the lifetime of Muthuswamy Pillai, leaving defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as his legal heirs. Singaravaelu Pillai (defendant No. 1) and Venugopal Pillai, plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) are second and third sons of said Muthuswamy Pillai. Defendant No. 6 who is the appellant in this case is the son of Singaravaelu Pillai (defendant No. 1) who died during the pendency of the suit. Muthuswamy Pillai who owned the property, settled the same under a registered settlement deed dated 26.3.1915 (Ext. A/1) in favour of Papammal and children born through her. At the time of execution and registration of settlement deed all the sons were minors and, therefore, their mother was appointed as their guardian who accepted the settlement in