Legal representative of deceased plaintiff is bound by decree.

(Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of the C.P.C., as against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1994 rendered in A.S.No.59 of 1993 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.9.1993 rendered in O.S.No.303 of 1983 by the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu.)

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in O.S.No.303 of 1983.

2. The second plaintiff is the appellant.

3. The appellant and his brother by name Koteeswaran @ Veerasamy have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit property, as well as for permanent injunction. As seen from the description of the property, the suit property is a building and site bearing Door No.105, situated in T.S.No.358/2.

4. The plaintiffs’ claim title to the suit property, pursuant to a settlement deed, executed by their grand father on 9.8.1956. According to them, the suit property originally belonged to their grand father Vedachalam and he, having the competency to gift the property, had gifted the same to the plaintiffs, though the third defendant was given the right to derive the income. In view of the specific recitals in the settlement deed, the third defendant has no absolute right or transferable interest and this being the position, the attachment of the properties, for the realisation of the decree amount, against the third defendant, in O.S.No.62 of 1976, is neither valid nor binding upon the plaintiffs and this should follow, the subsequent Court auction and the purchase of the property by the Court auction purchasers viz. Devaraj Naicker, are invalid. Taking advantage of the Court auction and the confirmation of the sale, the defendants are attempting to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs, even denying the title. Thus alleging, inter alia, a suit came to be filed in O.S.No.303 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu.

5. The contesting defendants, disputing the settlement said to have been executed by Vedachalam, as well as questioning the character of the suit property, have contended before the Courts below, that the suit property was attached in the Court proceedings, brought for sale, in which, one Devaraj Naicker had purchased the same and this being the position, neither on the basis of the settlement deed said to have been executed by Vedachalam, nor on the basis of the release deed, said to have been executed by the third defendant, the plaintiffs’ are entitled to claim declaration as well as for injunction, in view of the further fact, the suit is engineered by the third defendant. On the basis of the above allegations and on certain other averments also, by the contesting defendants, the suit was opposed.

6. Based upon the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, framing as many as seven issues, directed the parties to proceed with the trial, to establish their respective claims. After completion of the trial, the learned District Munsif, evaluating the oral, as well as the documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit property originally belonged to Vedachalm and therefore, he had the right to execute the settlement deed; that since the execution of the settlement deed is proved, it should have its validity and enforceability; that the plaintiffs’ are in possession and enjoyment of the same, not only on the date of filing of the suit, but also subsequent to the filing of the suit; that the life estate, if any, given to the third defendant, was released by him in favour of the vested reminders viz. the plaintiffs and therefore, on the basis of the settlement deed, as well as on the basis of the release deed, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit property. Taking the above conclusion, the suit was decreed, as prayed for with costs, as per the judgment dated 13.9.1993, which was impugned, by the unsuccessful contesting defendants, before the first appellate Court, viz. by the defendants 4 to 6, who are the L.Rs. of t