Executant of a valid document cannot institute suit to avoid the same.

Sathiadev, J.

1. Defendants 4, 6 and 7 Legal representative of Fifth Defendant in O.S. No.85 of 1974, Sub Court, Tuticorin are appellants herein. Plaintiff is the first respondent. Second defendant having died, his legal representatives are impleaded as respondents 4 to 8. Third defendant, the wife of the second defendant is the wife of the third respondent.

2. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiff's title to the 1st Schedule property, and to direct defendants 4 to 7 to deliver possession, and to pay mesne profits or in the alternative to direct defendants 2 and 3 to pay plaintiff the amounts specified in the 2nd Schedule with costs.

3. In the plaint it is stated that third defendant is the wife of the second defendant. First Schedule Property bearing Door No : 323, North Car Street, Sankarankovil alongwith other properties were settled by one Sankaralinga Mudaliar and his wife Nedungi. Animal in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under settlement deed dated : 16-9-1968. Four daughters were born to them. They being : Gomathiammal, Muthanamal, Shanmugathammal, and Anachi Animal. The last two daughters were married to second defendant. Anachi Animal lived away from him because of certain disputes. Under the terms of the settlement deed, the donors were given a life estate without any power of alienation and power of cancellation, and that after their life time, the property should vest absolutely on defendants 2 and 3. First defendant was a tenant on a monthly, rent of Rs.40. When rent was demanded from him, he claimed that there was a dispute with-reiercace to the property, and therefore, he was depositing the rent in Court. Sankaralinga died on 24-12-1969, and Nedungi on 30-11-1970. On 5-7-1970, defendants 2 and 3 and Nedungi entered into an agreement of sale to sell the property to one Arumugham Chettiar, the Plaintiff's undivided brother for Rs. 11,500. Pursuant to this agreement, defendants 2 and 3 conveyed the property to the plaintiff on 23-9-1972 for Rs. 11,500 out of which Rs.3,000 had been paid, and for the balance amount of Rs.8,500 a promissory note had been executed in favour of second defendant. It was agreed that defendants 2 and 3 should secure physical possession of the property before claiming the amount under the promissory note. Thereafter, reference is made to certain Rent Control Proceedings, and adjustment of amounts between the parties. Hence, it is claimed that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

4. First defendant, who was in occupation of the property as a tenant under Sankaralinga opposed this claim by stating that Sankaralinga had cancelled the settlement deed dated: 16-9-1968 by a cancellation deed dated : 15-10-1968, and executed a gift deed in favour of his three daughters viz., Gomathi, Muthammal and Ananchi Ammal on 17-10-1968, settling the 1st Schedule property on 31st October, 1968. Sankaralinga issued a lawyer's notice to second defendant informing him about the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 16-9-1968 and the execution of the gift deed, but no reply was received from him. The Power of Attorney brought about by second defendant was also cancelled by Sankaralinga on 24-10-1968 on knowing about the fraud played upon him in view of his old age and ill-health. The settlement deed dated : 15-9-1968 was not accepted and acted upon. The donees had been in possession and enjoyment of the property covered by the gift deed dated : 17-10-1968 by paying taxes, etc. in their names. First defendant continued to be in possession of the property having been inducted as a tenant. The alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not a valid one.

5. Second defendant supported the plaintiffs claim, and his right to get possession of the property from first defendant.

6. Defendants 4 to 7 supported the claim of first defendant.

7. A reply-statement was filed by plaintiff claiming that no fraud or misrepresentation had been played upon Sankaralinga and his wife.

8. Trial Court de