Power of revocation not given in the settlement deed.

P. Jyothimani, J.

The unsuccessful defendants before the Courts below are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the house property. Pending second appeal, the first appellant died and her legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 3 and 4. The plaintiff is the brother of defendants 1 and 2. It is stated that the first defendant is blind and the second defendant is a widow.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that his father Palanipandithar was owner of the suit property and by a registered settlement deed dated 38. 1970, which is marked as Exhibit A 1, he settled the property in favour of he plaintiff and ever since the date of the settlement, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by paying house tax, etc. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the settlement deed executed by his father under Exhibit A-1 is irrevocable since he had no such right. It is also his ease that ten years after the settlement deed was executed, the defendants have fraudulently taken away the original settlement deed from the plaintiffs possession and had obtained a cancellation deed dated 6. 1980 cancelling the said settlement deed, which stands marked on the side of the defendants as Exhibit B-1, and also obtained a settlement deed in their favour on 7. 1980, which stands marked as Exhibit B-2. According to the plaintiff, though the defendants had accepted the settlement made in his favour by his father on 38. 1970, yet, they are attempting to interfere with his possession and therefore, he tiled the said suit.

.3. The defendants, while admitting in the written statement about the settlement deed dated 38. 1970 marked as Exhibit A-1 writ-ten by Palanipandithar in favour of the plaintiff, would however deny the statement that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. It is the case of the defendants that after the said settlement deed, Palanipandithar himself was enjoying the property and since the plaintiff did not maintain his father, by document dated 6. 1980, their father had cancelled the settlement deed and a new settlement deed was executed in their favour on 7. 1980 based on which, possession was given to the defendants and it is the defendants, who have been maintaining their father as well as their aged mother. The defendants have also filed additional written statement stating that the plain-tiff had obtained settlement deed from his father on 38. 1970 by giving a false promise to him that the plaintiff would maintain him during his lifetime by providing food, shelter, etc. It is also their case in the additional written statement that their father, thinking that he is signing a "will", had signed the settlement deed but kept the same with him since the plaintiff had failed to maintain him. The father of the plaintiff, after seeing the document, which was in his possession and having found that it was obtained as settlement in a fraudulent manner, had cancelled the same on 6. 1980 and executed another settlement deed on 7. 1980 in favour of the defendants.

4. The Courts below have concurrently held that since Palanipandithar had settled the property under Exhibit A-1 (settlement deed) dated 38. 1970 in favour of the plaintiff, he has no right of revocation or any other right over the said property and therefore granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, as against which, the defendants have filed the present Second Appeal.

.5. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:

."Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Lower Appellate Court committed material error in law in not presuming and not shifting the burden on the respondent to prove that Exhibit A-1 has been obtained by the respondent by undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation and fraud?"

.6. It is seen from the records that Exhibit A-I-settlement deed executed by Palanipandithar in favour of