Delivery of possession of property settled by a settlement deed.

The defendants in O.S.No.472 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Tiruttani are the appellants in the above second appeal. The respondent, Plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration and for permanent injunction or in the alternative recovery of possession of the plaintiff’s property.

2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint are briefly narrated hereunder: One Govinda Mudali was the absolute owner of the suit property. He settled the suit property in favour of one Papammal, the vendor of the plaintiff under the registered settlement deed dated 15. 1970, and she has also accepted the same. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from the said Pappammal under a registered sale deed 4. 1979 for Rs.3,000. Since the vendor of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, sold the same to the plaintiff, they have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession also. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property, attempted to trespass in the suit property and interfered in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the present suit.

3. The allegations in the written statement are briefly as follows: The plaintiff and his vendor are not the owners of the suit property, and they were never in possession of the same. The settlement deed dated 15. 1970 was not a acted upon and the vendor of the plaintiff or the plaintiff have not perfected their title by adverse possession. One Govinda Mudali was the owner of the suit property and he was in possession of the same. He has executed a settlement deed in favour of one Pappammal by stipulating a condition but the settlement deed was not acted upon. Hence Govinda Mudali cancelled the registered settlement deed in favour of Pappammal and with his absolute right he has bequeathed the suit property in favour of the defendants temple as per the registered Will dated 4. 1975. Till the death of Govinda Mudali he was enjoying the property and after his death, the defendants are in continuous possession of the suit property on behalf of the temple. They have perfected their title by adverse possession also. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.I and four more witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 to 5 apart from marking Ex.A-1 to A-8 on the plaintiff’s side. The 3rd defendant was examined as D.W.I and two more witnesses were examined as D.Ws.2 and 3. Ex.B-1 to B-8 were also marked on the side of the defendants.

5. The learned District Munsif, Tiruttani after framing necessary issues and on the basis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his case consequently dismissed the suit with costs.

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.22 of 1982 before the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram. The learned Appellate Judge after framing the necessary points for consideration and after reappraising the whole evidence, disagreed with the findings of the trial court, allowed the appeal and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

7. Against the decree of the lower appellate Court, the defendants have filed the present appeal before this Court. While entertaining the appeal this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

1. Whether there is an omission to construe and misconstruction of the material evidence on record by the lower appellate court when it chose to reverse the judgment and decree of the first Court?

2. Whether there has been a proper construction by the lower appellate Court on Ex.A-1 on the question as to whether it is a Will subject to revocation?

8. Mr.J.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the light of the substantial questions of law framed contended that in view of the recital in Ex.A-1, the decree of the lower appe