It is evidence of an assertion of a right in property in dispute.

The civil revision petition arises under the following circumstances:

The first respondent herein filed suit/ O.S.No.521/1996, before the District Munsif's Court, Valangaiman, against his brother/the second respondent herein for a declaration that the suit property belonged to him absolutely pursuant to a settlement deed, dt.8.12.1986, by Late Sulochana Bai, mother of the parties. The second respondent was given permission to occupy the property for a period of six months to enable him to get possession of another property which the mother wanted to give him, and before doing which, she passed away. After her death, her heirs, including the first respondent herein, settled the other property on the second respondent. As the defendant did not vacate the property, notice was issued. The second respondent sent a reply refusing to vacate the premises stating that Sulochana Bai had executed a Will on 21.2.1986 bequeathing the suit property to his son as well as the first respondent's son and therefore the first respondent had no title over the same. The first respondent took a stand that the registered Will alleged to have been executed by Sulochana Bai was cancelled by her by revocation deed dt.7.12.1986 and it was only thereafter she executed the settlement deed in his favour. Sulochana Bai died on 15.1.1987 and it was contended by the second respondent that on her death, the Will came into force, and that he was in possession of the property as of right since his son was entitled to one-third share, and he was not residing in that property on the basis of the permission granted by the first respondent. He also disputed the settlement deed. According to him, during the relevant period Sulochana Bai was ill and was not able to understand the consequences of her acts, and further that the settlement deed was also not acted upon.

2. The trial Court held that the Will was duly cancelled by Sulochana Bai, that she had validly executed the said settlement deed, and that pursuant to the settlement deed the first respondent herein got absolute title. So holding, the trial Court decreed the suit.

3. On appeal in A.S.No.50 of 1997 by the second respondent, the decision of the trial Court was confirmed. Against this the second respondent filed S.A.No.1702 of 1999 before this Court. By judgment and decree, dt.3.1.2000, S.S.SUBRAMANI, J. (as the learned Judge then was) confirmed the decision of the Courts below and dismissed the second appeal. While dismissing the second appeal, the learned Judge in para 10 observed as follows:

" One big circumstance was also brought to the notice of the Court to contend that Ex.A.3 is a genuine document. Late Sulochana Bai Ammal had another property at Door No.23, Ellaiya Chetty Street, i.e. Close to the plaint schedule property. She wanted to settle that item in favour of defendant, and arrangements were also made for the same. But, before it could materialise, she died. Taking into consideration her last wish, plaintiff and his sisters released all their rights in favour of defendant by executing a registered document. The fact that the defendant obtained a release deed from his brother and his sisters in respect of Door no.23 is admitted. It is also the case of plaintiff that late Sulochana Bai Ammal found it inconvenient to retain the Will. She did not want the plaint schedule property to be divided into three shares, one-third to defendant's son and two-thirds to plaintiff's two sons. Taking into consideration the difficulties in enjoyment, she thought of executing a settlement deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and Door No.23 to the defendant so that on her death their children also can get absolute right over the respective items. The said explanation offered by plaintiff was also accepted by the trial Court as well as by the lower appellate Court. It could also be seen that as provided in the settlement deed/Ex.A.3, plaintiff also discharged debts by p